Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

PETITION

Experiments on Animals

Mr. Lagden: I beg to ask leave to present a petition

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble Petition of citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

SHEWETH
That the practice of experimenting upon living animals in the supposed interests of mankind involves the infliction of much pain and suffering upon defenceless creatures, and that the time and money spent thereon could be diverted from such experiments of doubtful and disputed value to humane avenues of investigation.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the practice of experimenting upon living animals be prohibited by law by your Honourable House.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

This Petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by 147,834 loyal subjects of Her Majesty in the United Kingdom.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Ice Cream Vans (Chimes)

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to prohibit ice-cream vans from playing signature tunes indiscriminately, and thereby reduce unnecessary noise.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): No, Sir. It is already an offence under Section 2 of the Noise Abatement Act, 1960, to operate these chimes outside the hours of 12 noon—7 p.m. or within these hours in such a manner as to give reasonable cause for annoyance.

Commander Kerans: In my constituency, where the inhabitants are mainly shift workers, these ice-cream vans travel about during the day and night. In spite of instructions issued by the Ice Cream Federation in which ice-cream vendors were asked not to sound these chimes in areas where shift workers were asleep, it is still going on. Will my right hon. Friend review the working of the Act?

Dr. Hill: The Act has been in force for one year only and I think it premature to consider amending it, although I appreciate what my hon. and gallant Friend says.

Green Belt, Chigwell

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will give the number, and details, of the applications by public authorities, since 1951, to build on the Metropolitan Green Belt within the Chigwell Parliamentary constituency; and what was the result of these applications.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I am afraid that this information is not available.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents will not be wholly satisfied with that reply?


There is great anxiety among them, both in the Chigwell Urban District and in the Epping and Ongar Rural District, about what seems to be the increasing tendency of public authorities and institutions to encroach on the Metropolitan Green Belt? Anything that can be done to allay this anxiety will be more welcome than my hon. Friend's answer.

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that my hon. Friend's constituents need be unduly disturbed. They can, of course, get a great deal of information from the registers which the local authorities keep, if they so desire.

Wallsend (Development)

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the general dissatisfaction in the Wallsend area regarding the lack of progress on the Northumberland County Development plan, with particular reference to Wallsend; and what progress is now being made with the plan.

Dr. Hill: I know that Wallsend is concerned to get on with its main shopping area. A decision letter which will enable it to do this is being issued today.
I will deal with the remainder of the North Tyneside Town Map as quickly as possible.

Mr. McKay: I thank the Minister.

Leasehold System, Wales

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will consult Welsh local authorities on the question of the working of the leasehold system in Wales.

Dr. Hill: I will gladly consider any views which Welsh local authorities send me on the subject of the leasehold system.

Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that accommodating reply will be very favourably received in the Principality? Is he further aware that the Welsh people, while realising that he is still somewhat new to his present office, none the less hope that he will give urgent and sympathetic consideration to this problem which is of top

priority among the people of the Principality?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman has made me fully aware of the importance that he attaches to this problem, but there is nothing further that I wish to say about it today.

Mr. C. Hughes: Will the Minister say whether or not he has consulted the Council for Wales, which is a body to advise the Government on major Welsh issues, about this matter? If he has not, will he do so forthwith?

Dr. Hill: Quite frankly, there is no need for further consultation to demonstrate the feeling which has been expressed on this subject.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will conduct a plebiscite in Wales on the question of leasehold reform.

Dr. Hill: No, Sir.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that I am not surprised at his reply? Is he further aware that the petition that I recently presented to the House would be supported by a very large number of people if there were a plebiscite in Wales? Since the Government foisted on us a plebiscite on Sunday opening, it would be interesting if they gave us a really important subject on which to vote.

Dr. Hill: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's passions for plebiscites, but this is too complicated a topic to be dealt with in that way.

Mr. C. Hughes: The ratepayers of Wales would far more readily bear the burden of a referendum on this issue than on Sunday opening.

Dr. Hill: That may be, but there is not going to be a plebiscite.

River Calder, Castleford

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he proposes to take on a short-term basis, pending the Report by the Standing Committee on Detergents, to mitigate the nuisance caused by foam blowing off the River Calder into the main shopping


centre of the borough of Castleford, Yorkshire.

Mr. Rippon: We advised the Borough Council of Castleford in October on steps that can be taken to deal with the situation on a short-term basis.

Mr. Roberts: I know that this is a difficult problem, but the foam is a threat to the business community of the town, apart from being a nuisance to the well-being of some of the traders. However, would the Parliamentary Secretary lend his support if an approach were made to the British Transport Commission to reduce the level at the weir and thus avoid the breaking up of the water which is causing the foam to become airborne?

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that is a difficult problem. We have given our advice to the local authority. It is for the local authority to act on it if it sees fit. Modification of the weir is possible, but I think that it would be much too expensive.

Office Development, London and South-East England

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many planning applications for office development in the London region he has called in in the past five years because he was not satisfied they complied with planning policy in the area.

Dr. Hill: Forty-three.

Mrs. Butler: Since the withholding of planning consent is the only effective means of controlling office development in south-east England, would the Minister indicate how far he has informed the planning authorities in the area that he will uphold their decisions if they refuse consent to office applications which might attract workers to already overcrowded areas of overfull employment, and that he will call in, if necessary, any applications of that nature for his personal consideration?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Lady will, I think, appreciate that one cannot, and must not, announce in advance the decision which one will reach on all such applications before the details are available. In general, I regard this as a problem

that needs to be solved and I am doing my utmost, in the first instance through the amendments proposed for the London Development Plan, to apply pressure to reduce the growing amount of office accommodation in London.

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what measures the Government propose to take restrain office development in Greater London and South-East England.

Dr. Hill: The problems resulting from office development arise mainly in the central area of London. It is the policy of the Government and of the local planning authorities concerned to limit expansion there by restricting both the areas zoned for offices and the size of office buildings, and by rigid control over changes to office use from other uses, particularly from residential use.
The proposals for the amendment of the Greater London Plan at present before me contain proposals which I am examining for the further tightening of control over office accommodation in the central area. I am also considering the question whether anything more can in practice be done.

Mr. Jay: Can the Minister give any details of how this policy will be carried out and how he proposes to tighten this control? In particular, is he aware that one of the many obstacles to any progress at the moment is the enormous financial compensation which local authorities have to pay if they refuse the necessary permission?

Dr. Hill: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I would say, without going into details, for they are a matter for consultation with London County Council, that the suggestions include cutting down the office zones, and the requirement of replacement of any residential accommodation on redevelopment. In answer to the second point, I realise the difficulties caused by the Third Schedule of the 1947 Act, under which there is to be compensation if a 10 per cent. increase is not allowed on reconstruction. Unfortunately, that 10 per cent. is interpreted in cubic space rather than in floor space.

Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that although office building uses only about 6 per cent. of the building force, that activity is concentrated in a few areas, including London and the Midlands, and to that extent is a serious problem?

Dr. Hill: I recognise that and I look at this mainly as a London problem, but I also recognise that there is a good case for replacing some of this out-of-date office accommodation.

Mr. Jay: Even though the 1947 Act was passed by a Labour Government, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not look at the possibility of amending it, particularly with regard to the 10 per cent.?

Dr. Hill: Without particularly making any point about that, I am looking at this question.

Green Belts (Schools)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that there is doubt as to the meaning of his Circular 42/55 about green belts, which mentions institutions standing in extensive grounds as being appropriate to a rural area; and whether this description applies to all new schools, regardless of their character.

Dr. Hill: The objects of the green belt policy are, I think, well understood. Whether a particular school should be allowed in a green belt will depend largely on the circumstances of the individual case and is, I suggest, best left to the local planning authority.

Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many, like myself, who support the green belt policy but that there is anxiety about the encroachment into it by local authorities, for example, who naturally are tempted to do so because of the cheaper price of land, and even by his own Department? Would it not be better to clear up the wording of the circular?

Dr. Hill: To be more precise than in Circular 42 would be to reduce the discretion of those who know best—the local planning authorities.

Greater London (Population)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs his present estimate of the population of Greater London in 1971; the current net rate of migration of population from Greater London; and how far these figures accord with the original estimates in the Greater London Plan.

Dr. Hill: I estimate that the population of the London conurbation, as defined for census purposes, will be rather less than 8 million people in 1971. The net rate of migration from this area during the last ten years has been more than 50,000 persons annually. Separate estimates are not available for the area covered by the Greater London Plan—the Abercrombie Report.

Mr. Hall: Do these figures show that there will be much greater pressure on living space in the Home Counties than was first anticipated? If so, what action is being taken now to meet these changed circumstances?

Dr. Hill: I think that my hon. Friend is right in the assumption he makes. Broadly speaking, the step now being taken following the circular to local authorities is a scrutiny with the planning authorities of the development plans with a view to bringing more and more land into development.

Mr. Wade: Have the Government any proposals for dealing with this serious congestion in population in this part of the country? What proposals have the Government for dealing with the intensification of the housing shortage which is thereby caused?

Dr. Hill: That is outside the scope of this Question, relating to estimates of population, but it is dealt with in another Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Jay: As the relevant area from the point of view of living and working is not just Greater London, but the whole of the south-east corner of these islands, as I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree, can he hold out any hope that there will not be a still further large increase in the population of this area between now and 1971?

Dr. Hill: He would be a bold man who would forecast with firmness what will happen. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important issue. A detailed study is being made of the whole of the south-east, which is the appropriate area to be studied for this purpose.

Buildings of Architectural or Historic Interest

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how frequently the lists of buildings of architectural or historic interest are revised.

Mr. Rippon: No systematic revision of the existing lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest has yet begun, though my right hon. Friend does, of course, make any necessary additions as they come to light.

Mr. Digby: Will my hon. Friend ensure that before supplementary lists are published, they are looked at and checked carefully in view of the fact that recently a well-known inn which had been demolished for two years was included in such a list? I will send my hon. Friend details.

Mr. Rippon: We do our best to ensure that the lists are as accurate as possible.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in how many local authority areas the lists of buildings of archæological and historic importance are incomplete; and what steps he is taking to improve the lists.

Mr. Rippon: Out of 1,474 local authority areas, 998 were covered on 30th November, 1961, by full statutory lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. A further 251 areas have incomplete lists.

Mr. Boyden: How is it that if the list is reasonably complete, historic buildings can get destroyed? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is reason to strengthen the law on this subject?

Mr. Rippon: I do not accept that assertion.

Leasehold Law

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to amend the law relating to leaseholds.

Dr. Hill: I have no proposals for legislation at present.

Mr. Donnelly: Why not? Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously expect the House to believe that at least the Government are united on one topic?

Dr. Hill: My predecessor undertook to consider the letters of complaints which came in. He invited them and forty-nine such letters were received. They are being studied with the advice of the valuers, but I have nothing more to add to my reply.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that I like the words "at present" in his reply and that if he wants letters concerning the leasehold system from Wales I can arrange for him to have them by the thousand?

Dr. Hill: I had the impression that the hon. Member had already done his best to that end.

Mr. M. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman offer any single piece of evidence that on this subject or any other his policy is still not being run by his predecessor?

Dr. Hill: It is for the hon. Member with his well-known standards of fairness to arrive at his own conclusion.

Air Pollution

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the estimated cost to the nation of air pollution for 1959 and 1960.

Mr. Rippon: It is not possible to make any reliable estimate but the cost was certainly considerable.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that a few years ago the Beaver Committee estimated the loss to the nation at £300 million a year and that there is no reason to think that that vast sum has been reduced? Will he now do something to improve our services against air pollution and in particular the Alkali Inspectorate?

Mr. Rippon: I am, of course, aware of the estimate made in 1954. It should be borne in mind that 1 million premises will be covered by smoke abatement orders by the end of the year.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is some reason to think that the Alkali Inspectorate is far too restricted in its attitude and that units like Battersea Power Station, for example, appear to be creating increased pollution of the air to the detriment of the interests of local inhabitants?

Mr. Rippon: That is an entirely different question.

Building Preservation Orders

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that, following the issue of a Building Preservation Order, local authorities will be required to carry out essential repairs to the building designated in the order.

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend has no power to require the repair of buildings in respect of which a building preservation order has been made.

Mr. Boyden: Would it not be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman took it now? Are not far too many buildings being destroyed because they are just left and nobody takes any interest in them?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that it is necessary to take any further power. Section 41 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, authorises the compulsory acquisition of buildings in appropriate cases. There is also power to acquire by agreement, and there are various powers which enable grants to be made in proper cases.

Land, Ormesby Bank (Development)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why in January, 1961, his Department gave authority to the North Riding County Council to grant planning permission to Westfield Estates Ltd. to develop at Ormesby Bank land not allocated for development in the town map.

Dr. Hill: The North Riding County Council sought authority to grant planning permission in this case on the grounds that this small extension of the residential area would not prejudice the general planning of the area or be injurious to amenity. My predecessor required the county council to advertise the application and to forward to him all objections received. There was one objection. Following a site inspection by an officer of the Department, no reason was seen to withhold authority.

Mr. Stewart: Is it not remarkable that this exceptional permission was granted to a company whose chief director is chairman of the North Riding County Council and was formerly chairman of its Planning Committee? Did not the Minister's predecessor refuse other applications for land not allocated in the development map from other applicants, asserting at the time that sufficient land for development had already been allocated in the town map?

Dr. Hill: I think that is quite an unworthy insinuation. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] By mentioning the fact that the chairman was a director of the company concerned there is contained an insinuation. That fact was plainly stated to the council. It was known to my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Housing and Local Government. There has been no concealment of any kind. This application has been dealt with on the usual lines without any exceptions being made to general practice.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was a member of the council and of the planning committee at the time in question, though I took not part in these proceedings? Is he further aware that while the present chairman of the county council was never chairman of the planning committee and is not a friend of mine, and indeed is a political opponent and has been my opponent in many local battles, nevertheless during the twelve years I have worked with him and against him on the county council I have detected not the slightest impropriety in any of his public conduct?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that this is one example of the remarkably good fortune that has attended planning applications by this company? Is he aware that, although he has said that nothing has been concealed about it, nothing could be concealed? The fact was perfectly well known. It is quite wrong to say that I have made an insinuation. I am stating this plainly as a fact. The permission given was unquestionably exceptional. It was not land under allocation. The previous Minister had often refused applications for land not so allocated and had simply said that sufficient land had been already allocated. I ask again, why the exception?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member repeats the charge, in the hope no doubt that some of the mud will stick. This application was entirely above board and was dealt with in the normal way.

Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Scheme, Burntwood

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when approval, in principle, will be given by his Department to the Burntwood and District Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Scheme, in view of substantial inconvenience at present being caused to local residents by the absence of an efficient system.

Mr. Rippon: This scheme was submitted to my right hon. Friend in mid-October. The Lichfield Rural District Council has been asked for some further particulars. As soon as these are received, arrangements will be made for the scheme to be investigated locally by one of our engineering inspectors. After that my right hon. Friend will give a decision as quickly as possible.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I make no complaint of delay on the part of his Department, but that, although this is a local authority responsibility. I have considered it necessary to investigate the problem on the spot in view of the very bad situation that exists, including the entry into people's houses of effluent from lavatories and also from a local abattoir? Is he further aware that I consider that there is a

severe risk to health, which I have duly reported? Will he ask for this investigation to be carried out with great urgency?

Mr. Rippon: We will ask the council to supply the information we have requested as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Overspill, Middlesex

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what new arrangements he is making for housing overspill from Middlesex.

Dr. Hill: The Middlesex authorities themselves are able to enter into any overspill arrangements they consider necessary and desirable. The long-term overspill needs of Greater London as a whole, including Middlesex, are being studied in the Ministry as part of the general problem of the South-East.

Mrs. Butler: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is precisely because the County of Middlesex has no housing powers like London and other conurbations that it is necessary for him to initiate fresh overspill arrangements? Does he appreciate that the present arrangements will provide for only about 13,000 houses for the needs of people in Middlesex in the next ten years whereas there is an urgent need for double that number? If the right hon. Gentleman is waiting for reorganisation of local government, that will be too late because of the time that these things take to materialise.

Dr. Hill: The district councils have the power and, as the hon. Lady knows, in a number of cases, such as in the St. Neots scheme and the Bletchley scheme, have acted. Indeed, under the Housing Act which has just gone on the Statute Book, there is power to help the recipient authority. I recognise that there is a need and that there will be a growing need for such overspill arrangements, but the powers are with the district councils and it is for them to operate them.

Mr. Pargiter: Is the Minister aware that the authorities in Middlesex have said that whatever arrangements they make will be completely inadequate and


cannot deal with the problem? Local authorities have admitted that.

Dr. Hill: I am sure that the district councils have the power to do what is sought and that no action is called for from me in this regard.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister suggesting that a hundred houses a year at St. Neots will be adequate to deal with the Middlesex overspill problem?

Dr. Hill: No, not at all. There is a need for overspill arrangements for people from Middlesex. I am saying that the power resides with the district councils.

Evictions

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to secure from local authorities details of evictions under the Rent Act and from other causes.

Dr. Hill: To do this would not help local authorities to deal with their housing problems: it would simply add to their burden of work which is already heavy enough.

Mr. Brockway: When will the right hon. Gentleman wake up from the complacency of his colleagues on the Government Front Bench? Is he aware that we are sure that if there were an epidemic, he would stir the Ministry of Health to action? Is not this a social epidemic just as serious? Is the Minister quite heartless about the homeless in London and about the families which are being evicted in Slough, with children going to institutions and their parents separated and grubbing where they can? Is not the Minister aware of the scandal that this represents?

Dr. Hill: Thirty-nine eviction orders were reported to the Slough Council last year.

Mr. Brockway: There are many more this year.

Dr. Hill: Four of them were obtained by the local authority. Let us face the real issue, which is that of housing in Slough. I recognise that there are difficulties. In the last ten years, 5,000 new houses have been built but the popula

tion in the meantime has risen by 16,000. Next year, Slough will get approved the houses that it is able to build. That is the way to tackle the problem and not by turning this into a political issue.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that this has always been a political issue and that his predecessor made no bones about it? If information about the working of the Rent Act would not help the local authorities, might it not at least help the Ministry towards a wiser policy?

Unfurnished Lettings (Rents)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to give powers to rent tribunals to fix the rent of unfurnished lettings.

Dr. Hill: No, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Is not the Minister aware that London is graced by more rent exploitation than ever before? If the Government seriously want a pay pause, must we not have a rent pause as well? Is the Minister simply sitting back and doing nothing at all about it?

Dr. Hill: I shall certainly not sit back, but the Question seeks a reversion to rent control and that I am not willing to accept.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Private Building

Mr Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will take steps to collect and publish statistics showing how much new housing accommodation to rent is being provided by private builders.

Dr. Hill: No, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Did not the Government promise that, as a result of their housing policies, more private builders would build more houses to let? Was not that pretty well the carrot that was dangled before the House on more than one occasion? Is not the reason why the


Government do not wish to collect these statistics the fact that they would show that in holding out that promise, the Government were guilty of a gigantic and cruel hoax at the expense of the people who desperately need houses?

Dr. Hill: The Rent Act had many objectives, including the conversion of large houses into flats, the improvement of property and better maintenance and repair. Those objectives have been achieved. It is a little odd that this complaint of too little housing to rent should come from a party which has done its best to discourage it by promising to repeal the Rent Act should it ever get back to power.

Mr. M. Stewart: Since Government policy relies more and more on private building and discourages council building, ought not the Minister to be willing to obtain some sort of information as to the extent to which private building is meeting the need for accommodation to let?

Dr. Hill: Every house, whether built by a local authority or a private builder, makes a contribution to the housing accommodation of the country.

Mr. A. Evans: Will not the right hon. Gentleman inform himself where the houses are being built in relation to the needs of the various localities? Is it not essential for his Department to have this information?

Dr. Hill: It is not essential for us to impose upon anyone the burden of gathering these additional statistics.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the continued unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter, too, on the Adjournment.

Blyth

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has sent to the communication sent him by the Blyth Borough Council on the economic situation and its effect on the local housing programme; and what assistance he will give towards a solution of their housing problem.

Dr. Hill: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply which has been sent to the council. I am not clear that it needs special assistance.

Mr. Milne: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is simply not good enough and that quack remedies are no longer a solution to the type of housing problem that the Blyth local authority is facing? Is he further aware that a statement was made some time ago that the housing problem existed only in the larger centres? Last year, in the Borough of Blyth, with over 1,300 people on the waiting list, no new houses were built. Is the Minister aware that if we are to clear this housing list, the Government must turn their back on their traditional housing policies and do something about it very quickly?

Dr. Hill: My information about the problems of Blyth, which the hon. Member has raised, is that two important problems confronted the local authority: shortage of land due to mining subsidence and the need of a new sewage scheme. Furthermore, by pooling rents and subsidies and applying a differential rent scheme, the local authority could find additional resources.

Mr. Milne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply. I give notice of my intention to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Local Authority Housing Programmes (Loans)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to assist local authorities whose housing programmes are restricted by the interest rate charged for loans by the Public Works Loan Board.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to assist local authorities whose housing programmes are restricted by the interest rate charged for loans from the Public Works Loan Board or from the money market.

Dr. Hill: The recent Housing Act has improved subsidies for the authorities in greatest financial need. Authorities can further help themselves by making sure that they are charging


reasonable rents and using Exchequer subsidy to help only those tenants who genuinely need it.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that, in reply to a previous Question, he said that there were only two difficulties facing the Borough of Blythe in its housing programme? Is he further aware that in the borough, a £2,000 house which in 1955 needed £5,040 on loan charges over 60 years, now needs £8,520, an increase of £3,480 and that this represents an increase of the weekly equivalent of £1 2s. 3d? How can the Minister say that our housing problems are being tackled if these are the difficulties that local authorities have to face?

Dr. Hill: I did not suggest that they were the only two problems, but they are two important problems which confront the local authorities. On the general proposition of the council, that interest rates for housing should be lowered, all I can say is that that would be a breach in the Government's credit policy which they are not prepared to undertake.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not a fact that cities with such terrible housing lists as Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle, far from benefiting under the Housing Act, will suffer a lower subidy? They will enjoy £8 a year instead of £22 a year subsidy. Secondly, is the Minister aware that these restricted programmes plus increased council house rents are causing widespread discontent with local authorities for which the Government are entirely responsible owing to their increased charges? Many of these councils are Labour-controlled and the Government are making them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Are not the Government making them the scapegoat for their own sins?

Dr. Hill: In reply to the first point, this House approved the principle that there should be a differential rate of subsidy between those authorities with the greater resources and those with the smaller resources, and that is an entirely fair principle. In regard to the hon. Member's second point, and, in particular, his reference to rents, I find it difficult to reconcile what he has said with the fact that in his own constituency the rent of a postwar three-bedroom house is 25s. 4d. and of a pre-war three-bedroom house 19s. 11d.

Letting of Houses (Children)

Mr. David James: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to prohibit advertisements of houses to let which mention a bar against children.

Dr. Hill: I do not think that such legislation would help to solve the problem the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this discrimination against people who commit the crime of having children is nauseating? Is he aware that, while in a free society people must be free to let their houses to whom they please, at least we should not underwrite the practice to which the Question refers but should show our disapproval by making it impossible to advertise the fact?

Dr. Hill: I have great sympathy with the basis of my hon. Friend's supplementary question but his suggestion is that these words should be forbidden in advertisements. I fear that if they were so forbidden couples might well waste much time answering advertisements only to be told that children would not be allowed. The basic problem is the provision of more houses and not more legislation.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman notice that he is now getting from behind him evidence of one of the results of the Rent Act?

Dr. Hill: I am getting from behind me a sympathetic reference to a problem—a sympathy which I share.

Mr. James: Will my right hon. Friend note that I do not regard this as an outcome of the Rent Act?

Caledonian Market Site

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will give his planning consent to the City of London Corporation to release for the immediate building of houses the City Corporation's site of some 20 acres at the disused Caledonian Market that has remained derelict since the war.

Dr. Hill: I want to see the whole of the Caledonian Market site put to good use as quickly as possible, though there is no outstanding application for planning permission. Proposals for zoning this land for residential and other social uses are before me as part of the London County Council's review of the development plan, and I hope to publish my provisional conclusions early next year. There is, however, nothing to preclude an application being made meanwhile in respect of any particular site. I am ready to consider any application that may be made on its merits.

Mr. Fletcher: I am glad to hear that reply, because I gather from it that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it has really been a scandal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I ask the Minister whether I am right in understanding him to agree that it really is a scandal that, despite the acute shortage of houses in London a site of 20 acres—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it really is a scandal that, despite the acute shortage of houses in London, this site of 20 acres should not be utilised for housing? May we take it that he will use his dynamic influence in this matter?

Dr. Hill: I join with the hon. Gentleman in hoping that this site will be developed as speedily as possible.

Mr. Roots: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement that 20 acres are disused is incorrect, and that the City Corporation has itself applied to develop 5 acres, which is the only part open to development at the moment?

Dr. Hill: The facts my hon. and learned Friend gives me do not entirely coincide with my own, but I will look into the matter.

Homeless Families

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation as a matter of urgency to give local authorities extended powers to deal with the growing problem of homeless families.

Dr. Hill: Local authorities already possess adequate powers to deal with this problem, including the power to acquire empty premises by agreement or compulsorily. Accordingly, powers to requisition empty premises are unnecessary. Power to requisition occupied property would be pointless.

Mr. Fletcher: May we take it from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman will support any application by any local authority to acquire by requisition any empty property for housing the increasing number of homeless families in London?

Dr. Hill: I have made it abundantly plain to the London County Council that if compulsory purchase orders are made on empty property, with the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I will expedite with all possible speed the consideration of those orders. I should add that over the past six months during which this problem has been causing considerable concern I have had no such applications.

Mr. M. Stewart: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, however much he expedites consideration of compulsory purchase orders, compulsory purchase is still a slow process—too slow in this emergency—and that it is from that fact that the need for requisitioning powers arises?

Dr. Hill: The post-war requisitioning powers took on average about six weeks, while compulsory purchase may be assumed to take 12 to 13 weeks. The difference in time between the two procedures is due to the fact that there is a proper right of appeal by the owner against what is proposed.

Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Dance: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have had Question No. 33 on the Order Paper for early answer for the past four weeks. As the Minister of Housing and Local Government now goes to the bottom of the list, how can I possibly get my Question answered?

Mr. Speaker: I express sympathy with the hon. Gentleman but I cannot deal with it or with a point of order now.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will define the present functions of the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The functions of the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs remain as defined in the 1957 Command Paper on Government Administration in Wales. He assists, and when necessary acts for, the Minister for Welsh Affairs in his responsibilities affecting Wales, which are to ensure that its special interests are represented and taken into account in all aspects of public business which may affect them.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not a weakness of the office that the Minister of State has no specific Departmental responsibility and that this allows him time to travel a great deal around Wales, doing a good deal of Conservative Party propaganda? Is not this a very strong argument in favour of appointing a Secretary of State for Wales with responsibilities in certain fields?

The Prime Minister: I think that the system has worked well, and I understand that my noble Friend's work has been of great value in helping Wales.

Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend take note that, whatever the constitutional arrangements for Wales, they have been vindicated by the fact that Wales has never been so prosperous?

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware that Lord Brecon was appointed in special circumstances after a university rugger match? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this an appropriate day to terminate the appointment?

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Welsh people regard this office as being merely a shop window, as a front without any real contribution to the life of the Principality? Will he give us an office in which we can feel that there is real Parliamentary responsibility on the Minister concerned?

The Prime Minister: Parliamentary responsibility lies with the Minister in this House. We are speaking now of the

office of the Minister of State. I believe it to be generally recognised that Lord Brecon's work in helping towards a solution of the problems of Wales has been of great value.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRIVY SEAL (QUESTIONS)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the Lord Privy Seal to have first priority in answering Oral Questions on at least one day each week.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am not aware of any widespread desire for this change.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Lord Privy Seal has answered Oral Questions on only one occasion since this Session began, and then only half of the number put down because of the accumulated backlog? Is he further aware that the Lord Privy Seal will not answer orally again—unless we are lucky enough to get a few next Monday—until 29th January? In view of the enormous range of very often urgent matters now covered by foreign affairs, will the Prime Minister try to do something to give a reality to our pretended democratic control of foreign affairs?

The Prime Minister: The order of Questions is examined, I am told, in consultation with the Opposition at each holiday Adjournment. If there is a general feeling that Foreign Office Questions should have greater preference, no doubt that can be considered in the normal way. As far as the wider question is concerned, I am bound to observe that, among the Questions which I answer twice a week, a number of Questions about foreign affairs in their broadest aspects are put down.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall, from his own knowledge and experience, that before the last War the Foreign Secretary answered Questions at least once a week? As the Lord Privy Seal is understudy to the Foreign Secretary, will the Prime Minister consider arranging matters accordingly?

The Prime Minister: These arrangements are made by general consultation between Government and Opposition,


and if somebody is given preference somebody else is put down. That is the problem, but I am perfectly prepared that it should be examined again in the usual way.

Mr. Rankin: May we take it, then, that if this rearrangement were suggested, it would have the right hon. Gentleman's favourable support?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I prefer that it should be discussed in the normal way through the usual channels.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT KENNEDY (MEETING)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether, in his forthcoming talks with President Kennedy, he will emphasise the urgent need for initiating negotiations on the Berlin problem and European peace.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Kennedy at their meeting in Bermuda that the free elections under international supervision in both North and South Vietnam called for by the 1954 Geneva agreements should now be held.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether at their meeting in Bermuda, he will propose to President Kennedy that negotiations for a settlement of the Berlin question and related questions should be initiated and not confined to preserving the status quo in West Berlin.

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Prime Minister if he will take the opportunity in his forthcoming meetings with the President of the United States of America to discuss the President's proposals for more intimate trading links between the United States of America and Europe.

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Prime Minister if he will take the opportunity in his forthcoming meetings with the President of the United States of America of discussing the respective United Kingdom and United States policies with regard to United Nations action in the Congo, so that each Government can better understand the position of the other.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister if, in his forthcoming discussions with President Kennedy, he will seek to agree a joint Anglo-American policy regarding the actions of the United Nations in the Congo.

The Prime Minister: I would refer to the Answer which I gave on 7th December to Questions about my forthcoming meeting with President Kennedy.

Mr. Shinwell: May we have an assurance that, in his conversations with President Kennedy, the Prime Minister will pursue the importance of the proposed negotiations, and that he will not permit any delay because of the recalcitrant attitude of President de Gaulle or of anybody else?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear many times that Her Majesty's Government need no convincing of the necessity for negotiations in one form or another on the subject of Berlin and perhaps upon wider topics. But I have also said that obviously it will not be helpful to set out in full our negotiating position before discussions begin.

Mr. Zilliacus: In view of the dangers of the present deadlock, will the Prime Minister suggest to President Kennedy that negotiations be initiated with or without the agreement of France and Germany? Furthermore, since N.A.T.O. comes into operation only in the face of unprovoked aggression, will he make it clear that if France and Germany pursue policies we regard as being provocative we shall not be committed to war for such policies?
On the subject of Vietnam, is it not the case that President Kennedy, in his recent interview, stressed that American policy was that peoples should be free to choose their Governments by free election? Will the Prime Minister invite the President to apply this to Vietnam?

The Prime Minister: The problem concerned in the hon. Member's first supplementary question is that of getting, if possible, an agreed Western position. That is obviously of great importance and is being discussed at this moment in Paris and will be discussed again tomorrow in N.A.T.O.
I am glad to see the hon. Member's conversion to the view that the question


of the unity of a country can best be settled by free elections. The difficulty in Vietnam is that infiltration, subversion and other measures have created a situation in which the conditions for elections do not exist.

Mr. H. Wilson: Question No. 8 was put down before the Government's decision last Friday, and before that decision was countermanded in yesterday's statement by the Lord Privy Seat, on the basis, or pretext, of statements alleged to have been made by United Nations representatives. Will the Prime Minister, in preparation for his meeting with the President, when these questions will presumably be discussed, make it clear that the Government intend to decide this issue of the Congo in relation to what needs to be done in the situation—in other words, to govern and not be pushed around by a minority of back benchers?

The Prime Minister: The objective of the Government is to carry out the policy—which we believe the United States shares with us—that this is a matter which should be settled, not by the imposition of power, but by peaceful negotiations.

Mr. Wilson: But is not the Prime Minister aware that, while we have all said that there must be peaceful negotiations, these are impossible until the mercenaries have been cleared out of the country? Will he ensure that the Government's long record of equivocation, which is darkening our name in the world, is ended so that our position becomes clear?

The Prime Minister: We are only too anxious to clear up any misunderstanding. It is perfectly true that in the various resolutions which have been passed, sometimes under threat of veto from one side or the other, there may be difficulties. But it has always been our view—and we have never wavered from it—that this matter should not be settled by an attempt of one part of the country to dominate the other, or by the United Nations being used to impose such a settlement.
The United Nations is there to maintain its position. It is right that it should do so and it should be supported in doing so. That is its right under our

present mandate. What has worried us is the uncertainty as to whether the United Nations was really carrying out what we honestly believe to be its purpose in the Congo.

Mr. Wyatt: On this issue will not the Prime Minister have the courage to admit that the United States approach may be more correct than ours, as it was at the time of Suez? Does he not understand that it is absolutely vital to the survival of United Nations that we should implement its decisions and help its officials to carry out these decisions even though we think the decisions may be wrong and the officials may be wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—until such time as we can get those decisions altered, or the officials replaced? Is he not aware that it is not good enough to support the United Nations only when we think it is right and not when we think it is wrong?

The Prime Minister: It is not a question of supporting the United Nations when we think it is wrong. This is a question of interpretation and of whether it was doing what we believe to be its proper intentions and functions.

Mr. Gaitskell: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say that he believed that the United States Government took the same view as the British Government about the Congo situation? If so, can he tell us whether the United States Government were in agreement with Her Majesty's Government when they decided to provide the United Nations with the bombs, and also in agreement with Her Majesty's Government when they decided to withhold authorisation?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I was talking of the large questions of policy. [Interruption.] I am quite ready to debate that when the time comes. The United States has felt broadly as we have done—that this matter should be settled not by the United Nations forces seizing and conquering a territory and handing it over to anybody else—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—not by treating them as rebels, but by continuing their presence and doing as they did in the first year—trying to create the conditions for negotiation. After 13th September, which we regard as an unhappy carrying-out of what the officials thought to be their instructions, we tried hard again


to return to negotiation, and we shall continue our efforts for a cease-fire, for peace and for negotiation.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the question which I just put to him? Will he say whether the United States Government are in agreement with Her Majesty's Government in their latest decision, namely, to withhold the supply of bombs? Is it not the case that the United States Government have supplied the United Nations forces with aircraft? Does not that suggest an approach somewhat different from that of Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The United States Government have not supplied them, rather specifically, with those particular forms of weapons or fighting aircraft.

Sir A. V. Harvey: When the Prime Minister meets President Kennedy, will he point out that the request for 24 1,000 lb. bombs to destroy aircraft on the ground does not make sense, and that the most effective and cheapest way of doing that, as can be confirmed by any member of the Air Council, is to use rockets or cannon shells? Are not the British Government perfectly justified in turning down a request for 1,000 lb. bombs, which can be used for destroying only buildings and children?

The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to go into all the details of this matter when the debate comes. An appeal was made to us. In the first instance, we were unwilling to meet it, for the reasons well known—dropping 1,000 lb. bombs about the country is a pretty strong measure. We resisted it and asked for the specific reasons. An appeal was made to us saying that troops were in danger, perhaps, of an attack which might be very bad for them and might be fatal for them. After consideration, rightly or wrongly, subject to very specific conditions, we agreed to make delivery in what appeared to us to be an emergency. I am bound to say, and I can say it frankly, that I was slightly surprised that this emergency was such that we were not even asked to deliver for a period of eight days. There was no request to collect them. Secondly, when we saw what I regard

as a confused situation about the real tactical and strategic purposes being pursued by the officers of the United Nations, we felt it right to raise the whole question again.

Mr. H. Wilson: While all of us share the reluctance shown by the Government about the use of these very heavy bombs, without the strictest control to ensure that they were used purely for destroying hostile aircraft, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the reasons given yesterday for countermanding the decision of Friday were the statements alleged to have been made by Mr. Linner and General McKeown? Is he now aware that it was made clear even before yesterday that those statements about Mr. Linner and General McKeown were false and that the House was misled so far as they were concerned? In view of that, without waiting for Thursday's debate, will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity of explaining first how this came about and, secondly, what the Cabinet is now to do about last Friday's decision?

The Prime Minister: Reports of Mr. Linner's original interview, which took place in Leopoldville on 7th December, were published in a Swedish newspaper on 8th December. The report of these reached the Foreign Office the following day. They were immediately drawn to the attention of the Secretary-General, who no doubt had them in mind in making his statement on 10th December. This is the statement to which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal referred in the House yesterday.
A telegram was received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Leopoldville yesterday afternoon which was not available to my right hon. Friend before he made his statement in the House. This reports that, on being shown the report which had appeared in the Swedish Press, Mr. Linner made a second statement which, as I understand it, was published in the Swedish Press on 10th December. This second statement does not in terms deny the accuracy of the reporting of the first statement, though it makes some comment on it, suggesting that it has been misinterpreted. The second statement expressed another view from that ascribed to Mr. Linner in the first interview, but it still maintains that


Mr. Linner has carte blanche to conduct local action in the Congo within the framework of the Security Council resolutions. The crucial question is how these resolutions are interpreted, and it is on that that we are seeking urgent clarification.

Mr. Wilson: But will the right hon. Gentleman get out of this tangled web by now admitting that on Sunday there was clear and categorical repudiation of this report in a leading Swedish newspaper? I have the text, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has. As this was published on Sunday, it should have been known to the Lord Privy Seal when he spoke yesterday. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that his allegation that General McKeown had said that he was not prepared to consider the application from Mr. Tshombe for negotiation for a cease-fire is entirely wrong and that the full text of what General McKeown said—and again I have a copy—does not bear out that statement and that the House has been misled on both statements?

The Prime Minister: The Swedish newspaper, as I understand it, merely reported the second interview which Mr. Linner gave on 10th December, and quoted from it. I have a telegram summarising it. He does not actually accuse the journalist of misreporting him. He merely makes a new statement. We have all had experience of these affairs. I am bound to say that these things are published when interviews are given. When another account is given, that adds to the reasons why the matter should be cleared up.

Sir R. Grimston: Does not my right hon. Friend think that all this shows that the Opposition policy of supporting the United Nations, right or wrong, is disastrous? Having regard to the fact that what is now necessary is to stop the bloodshed and the destruction which is going on in Katanga, ought not Her Majesty's Government forthwith to say that unless it is stopped, we will immediately withdraw all financial support for the operation?

The Prime Minister: That is a point of view. I do not share these extreme views about the United Nations one way or the other. I do not say, "United Nations, right or wrong". Nor do I say that we should necessarily withdraw

from it. With all the other nations of the world, we have a task of trying to make this organisation work. It has many difficulties. It does not have a proper chain of command. It does not operate in the ordinary way which countries would follow with forces in the field. There are all kinds of forces working in it and, alas, the great contest in the world is reflected in the Security Council and in the Assembly. It would be a very grave decision for us to abandon the task. Equally, it is our duty to try to steer it in what we think is the right way.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the new statements made by Mr. Linner, will the Prime Minister say what precise assurances the Government now require from the United Nations before they will release these bombs? Secondly, in view of the immense importance of Anglo-American understanding in this matter, will he say whether any consultations took place with the United States before the Government's decision about the bombs was taken, and whether any further consultations will take place before a final decision is made later in the week?

The Prime Minister: By good fortune, the Foreign Secretary is in Paris and is discussiong this matter with Secretary of State Rusk. We are making representations—or will be when the day starts in New York—with the Secretary-General through our representative, Sir Patrick Dean who will try to clarify the situation in order that we may see what is the best course that we can pursue.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can discuss this day after day without a Question before the House. I will allow one more to the Leader of the Opposition, but I do not think that we should continue.

Mr. Gaitskell: I merely wish to ask the Prime Minister if he will answer my question, which is not what interventions are being made by our representative at the United Nations, but whether the United States Government were consulted before Her Majesty's Government took their two decisions on the bombs and what precise assurances are now being requested from the United Nations


before Her Majesty's Government will release the bombs.

The Prime Minister: I should require notice of the first question, but I do not think that it would be natural that we should consult the United States Government on this request which was made to us. However, if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I will make sure that I have it right. On his second question, we want to be sure about both the strategy and tactics—the strategy being pursued with all its ambivalence and whether we can support it, and whether the tactics are correct.

IRAQ (RELEASE OF DETAINED BRITISH SUBJECTS)

Mr. Mendelson: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has now received official confirmation of the impending release from detention of the thre British soldiers detained in Iraq; and whether he will make a statement.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Embassy was officially informed at noon today, Baghdad time, that the three soldiers and the two Turriff Burden employees, who were arrested in September, would be released and delivered to the Embassy soon. We expect to hear more very shortly, but we still have no definite date for their release.

Mr. Mendelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this news will bring great relief to the families of all the people concerned and to many people all over the country who have been following their fate with keen interest and some anxiety? Will he give the House an assurance that as soon as these men are released they will immediately he flown home to their families, so that they can be reunited with them in time for Christmas?

Mr. Heath: I am sure that the whole House will welcome this announcement. I would like to express our gratitude to certain hon. Members who have been most helpful in these matters while these men have been in detention.
The question of the two Turriff Burden employees is a matter for the firm. I am sure that the firm will do everything it can to help these two employees

because of the very great assistance it has been giving in the past two months.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will arrange for the three soldiers to be brought back to this country as soon as they are released and I understand that they will receive a period of leave which, we hope, means that they will be home for Christmas.

Mr. Jeger: Will the Lord Privy Seal give an assurance that he will co-operate fully with the private firm for which the two civilians worked, to ensure that they can return to their families speedily?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. We will give them every assistance that we can.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: On 7th December the Leader of the House undertook to look again at the business for Wednesday of this week. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has done so, and, if so, with what result?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir.
It is urgently required to obtain before Christmas the remaining stages of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill. This applies also to the Orders announced for that day. Accordingly, we shall not seek to make progress tomorrow with the Army Reserve Bill.
Therefore, the business on WEDNESDAY 13TH DECEMBER, will be: Report and Third Reading of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill.
Consideration of the Motions on the National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations, the Electricity (Borrowing Powers), and the (South of Scotland Electricity Board) Orders.
The House will wish to have notice that the debate on Foreign Affairs on Thursday, 14th December, will now arise on a Government Motion on the Congo. This Motion will be tabled tonight.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the change in business on Wednesday, which follows the lines of my questions last week. As to his further statement about the business for Thursday, 14th December, while we quite understand that there


should be a debate now on the Congo alone, and why the Government wish it to arise on a Government Motion, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the original proposal of the Government was a debate on foreign affairs generally and that the Berlin crisis, apart from anything else, is very urgent?
In view of this, and of the Prime Minister's visit to President Kennedy, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on Berlin and other aspects of foreign affairs before the Recess?

Mr. Macleod: I realise that the intention of the Government to put down a Motion such as I have indicated will restrict the debate on Thursday from the scope announced in the business statement last week. Although time is short before the Christmas Recess, I should be very glad to discuss the possibility of such a debate as the Leader of the Opposition mentions.

Mr. Shinwell: When does the Leader of the House propose to take the remaining stages of the Army Reserve Bill? Is it proposed to postpone it until after the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. It is intended to make some progress with the Bill before Christmas.

DEBATES (PROVISION OF DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a statement to the House about the provision of documents for the use of hon. Members in debate, first, to prevent any misunderstanding of the disjointed Rulings which I gave on 29th November in the course of the debate on the renewal of the Licence to the British Broadcasting Corporation, and, secondly, to announce a new arrangement which should greatly assist hon. Members.
On 29th November, I twice spoke of the responsibility of the Ministry or Department for making documents "available". It is the word "available" which is susceptible of misunderstanding. If hon. Members will look at the statement of the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 17th July, 1956, they will see that in the case of a document more than two years old,

which is out of print, reprinting will be undertaken if the demand for copies is sufficient to justify the expenditure involved. The decision whether or no to reprint must be made by Ministers. If a reprint is made, then the document is available in the Stationery Office and can be obtained by a Member free of charge on application to the Vote Office, subject to the necessary physical delay and provided that the Stationery Office is open.
To make documents available in the Stationery Office is, therefore, the only obligation which the Government have publicly undertaken, and in fairness to the Government I wish to make it plain that I now know that which I did not know on 29th November, not having been so informed, namely, that the Government had faithfully discharged that obligation in relation to the Licence which would be superseded by the Licence which the House was then invited to approve.
In practice, some Departments have gone further and made available in the Vote Office such documents as they thought necessary for a particular debate. When I gave my Ruling on 29th November I was under the mistaken impression that all Government Departments did this, and, under that impression, used the expression "available" as meaning available in the Vote Office.
Since then, however, the Leader of the House has been good enough to consult me and has agreed to the following suggestion: that a Minister in charge of an item of business will in future:

(a) in the case of documents which may fairly be deemed to be needed for that debate and which are held by the Stationery Office, be responsible for having a reasonable number of copies put in the Vote Office and
(b) in the case of similar documents which are out of print be responsible for deciding whether or no to reprint, and, if the document is reprinted, for having a reasonable number of copies put in the Vote Office.
I hope that this suggestion will prove greatly to the advantage of the House and I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for agreeing to it.
This arrangement is an advance on the 1956 position for the convenience of the


House; it does not replace it. An individual Member, therefore, may apply to the Vote Office for any paper exactly as before.
I am sure, however, that an hon. Member, when told that a document is out of print, will, in the interests of economy, see if his needs can be met from the considerable resources of our own Library before pressing for a reprint.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am sure that the House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that very clear statement. It goes, as you have said, beyond the 1956 practice to which we have hitherto adhered, but as what you have just said is for the greater convenience of hon. Members we should, naturally, be very ready to follow it.

Mr. Gaitskell: I associate myself with the Leader of the House in thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for your statement. May I just put one question to you? The statement is a little complicated. Does it amount to this, that in future the practice which you believe to have been followed, namely, that Departments should make available in the Vote Office such documents as they think necessary for a particular debate, will now be followed by all Departments?

Mr. Speaker: That puts it most concisely, in so far as I can remember the total content of my disjointed Rulings on 29th November.

Mr. Bellenger: I should like to comment, Mr. Speaker, on that portion of your statement in which you said that it will be left to the discretion of the Minister to decide whether the document is of sufficient importance for a reprint to be ordered.
In these days, when we have machines in the House which can make Photostat copies of documents, it would not be difficult to run off a few copies and make them available for Members, because when a Minister brings forward a subject for debate it is very important that hon. Members should be adequately equipped for the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, of course. It is because they ought to be adequately equipped that all this has arisen. However, I am obliged to the right hon.

Gentleman for his suggestion. He will realise that a document out of print might be so remote from the substance of the debate that it would be ridiculous to exercise ourselves about it either by printing or Photostating it.

Mr. Marsh: While I am grateful for the assistance you have given on this issue, Mr. Speaker, surely the problem which led up to your statement today arises precisely out of the fact that the Minister responsible for the Department regarded even the relevant document—the Charter itself, which was relevant to the discussion—as unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In no conceivable circumstances can that arise now. I do not wish to be understood as regarding the Charter as relevant to the debate at all when we resume it. I am just not expressing a view about it. What had happened was that they had reprinted, only I did not know and the hon. Member had not found out.

SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES (PROPOSED TRANSFER)

Mr. Denis Howell: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the proposed transfer of subsidiary companies by Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds and Messrs. Delta Metals Ltd. which will create monopolies in the field of manufacture of brass screws and of brass rod and wire, and which will be against the public interest.
I should like to make a brief submission on the points about which I have to satisfy you, Mr. Speaker—that it is a definite matter, that it is very urgent and is likely to happen within the next 24 hours, that it is of urgent public importance.
Delta Metals Ltd. acquired the one company within the last sx months. It acquired 15 companies in this field within the last three years, and if this goes through it will create a tremendous monopoly in brass rod and wire for Delta Metals Ltd. and of brass screws for Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds.
As the Government are one of the largest buyers of brass products, it will


also create tremendous complications for the taxpayers and, generally speaking, will obviously be against the public interest.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) asks leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the proposed transfer of subsidiary companies by Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds and Messrs. Delta Metals Ltd. which will create monopolies in the field of manufacture of brass screws and of brass rod and wire, and which will be against the public interest.
The hon. Members' application is not in order. There is no Ministerial responsibility in these circumstances.

BILL PRESENTED

DECIMAL COINAGE

Bill to provide for a coinage system on a decimal basis and for matters incidental thereto, presented by Mr. Proud-foot, supported by Sir Donald Kaberry, Mr. du Cann, Mr. Philip Hocking, Mr. Edwin Taylor, and Mr. John Hollingworth; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th May, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

EXTENSION OF LEASES

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide powers to enable lessees and tenants occupying residential property, or the site and curtilage thereof, at low rents, under certain leases, and occupying sub-tenants of tenants under such leases, to obtain extensions of such leases or sub-leases; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
My proposed Bill is intended to be a natural extension of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, which was brought in by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—then Minister of Housing and Local Government—and which had the effect of restricting the powers of ground landlords and of giving some security to lessees.
I want to make it quite clear that the Bill does not advocate leasehold enfranchisement. The National Association of Leaseholders, of which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) is president, has recently abandoned its primary object of leasehold enfranchisement and is now supporting the Bill.
The purposes of the Bill, shortly, are to enable lessees to apply to the courts for extensions of their leases for periods of not less than fifteen years and not more than forty-five years, at a new ground rent to be fixed, if necessary, by arbitration or by the county court. Incidentally, if the Bill is given a First Reading a formula will be incorporated in it for the guidance of the courts. Alternatively, instead of an increase in the ground rent a small ground rent could be arranged, with a capital payment. Furthermore, it is suggested that the lessee making the application, or his family, must have been in residence for a specified number of years.
The Bill contains certain safeguards for ground landlords. Before the court can grant an extension it will have to be satisfied that the redevelopment to take place after the termination of the tenancy and after the obtaining of planning consent from the local authority will make an improved contribution to the housing needs of the neighbourhood; that the landlord has acquired the reversion not less than three years


before the expiry of the lease, as a residence for himself or his family; and that reasonable accommodation, reasonably suitable to the needs and means of the tenant and his family, living with him, will be made available at the term date.
There is adequate precedent for the last-named provision. Local authorities engaged in slum clearance have an obligation to provide reasonable alternative accommodation for dispossessed tenants, and it seems reasonable that if houses which are unfit for human habitation are pulled down, and the tenants are rehoused, tenants of demolished houses which were of good structure should be given the same statutory right.
I wish to introduce the Bill because hundreds of thousands of leases will fall in during the next few years. The building of homes is not keeping pace with the demand, and it would be tragic if, during this period of intense shortage, tenants were uprooted and forced to join the end of the queue on local government housing waiting lists. Developments of sites and the consequent demolition of houses are taking place in built-up areas, especially in Greater London, Wales and in our large cities, and the grave land shortage in these areas has forced up values of sites to an exorbitant extent. The proposed replacements by some ground landlords are often shops and offices, and, even if new houses or flats are built on the sites where the property is to be pulled down, the rent or the premium required is, in the vast majority of cases, not within the purses of the people who occupied the sites previously.
It is surely contrary to public policy, during a severe shortage of land, to tear down houses which would have a useful life for many years to come. I believe that the public conscience would support a Measure of this kind, to allay the fears of scores of thousands of tenants, many of them elderly, who have spent a lifetime in their houses and who would otherwise find themselves without a home.
Incidentally, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will no doubt be obliged to the House if it passes a Bill of this kind, because it would prevent the exacerbation of the housing situation which other

wise lies ahead. Furthermore, the extension of these leases at this moment will maintain for a considerable period the Conservative doctrine of a property-owning democracy.
It is natural that some outside bodies should show some apprehension at these proposals. Lawyers are certain to do so. During the last few years I have attempted to study the problem profoundly, and I know practically all the arguments that lawyers are likely to raise. I will mention only one, which is frequently advanced by the legal profession. It relates to the sanctity of contract.
Surely a contract entered into ninety-nine years ago is not necessarily just in 1962. In any case, the passing of the Rent Restrictions Acts, the Town Planning Acts, the Landlord and Tenant Acts, and the Rent Acts have blown that argument sky-high. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1954 and was noted for his human approach to problems affecting people—and he is still noted for it—did not accept such an argument in relation to leaseholds.
Some of the possible objectors have entrenched and vested interests. There are the benevolent, charitable and educational institutions, schools, universities, and hospitals. The Bill would vastly increase their income—not as much as if the present trend was to continue, but, nevertheless, to a great extent. Incidentally, it would also increase their capital. Generally speaking, these institutions have boards of governors which constitute a benevolent squirearchy. Then there are the religious foundations, such as the Church Commissioners, and also the insurance companies which, as most hon. Members will agree, are some of the best freeholders of all. In that connection I must declare an interest, inasmuch as I am a director of one of them.
There are, however, some very greedy landlords, who see their chance to make a financial killing free of tax. These are the people who will squeal most when they are no longer allowed to take the maximum out of a property which is theirs by virtue of their long lease. Then there are the land speculators, usually the worst kind of operators in the property market.
It is to be hoped that none of them will use his influence in any way to attempt to kill the proposed Bill, which. I am confident, will be a great step forward in social justice. I have received many hundreds of letters from leaseholders throughout the country, and especially from Wales, and I have with me a Petition addressed to all hon. Members asking them to support the Bill. The Petition comes from 2,600 lessees in Dulwich.
I trust that the First Reading of the Bill will not be opposed. My colleagues and I who have formulated it are not Parliamentary draftsmen, and if a First Reading is given to it further opportunities will be available to the House to amend and improve it during the course of its further stages.
Finally, I submit that the ownership of land, bricks, mortar and money should not be allowed to determine the future hapiness or otherwise of so many families. This is a matter for Parliament to decide.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Jenkins, Mr. Burden, Brigadier Clarke, Mr. Gower, Mr. Hale, Mr. Lipton, Mr. Marlowe, Mr. McAdden, Sir L. Plummer, Mr. Skeffington, and Mr. G. Thomas.

EXTENSION OF LEASES

Bill to provide powers to enable lessees and tenants occupying residential property, or the site and curtilage thereof, at low rents, under certain leases, and occupying sub-tenants of tenants under such leases, to obtain extensions of such leases or sub-leases; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd March and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

Orders of the Day — SIERRA LEONE (GIFT OF A MACE)

Considered in Committee

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

4.4 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House. a Mace to the House of Representatives of Sierra Leone, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
This Motion is in the happy tradition that we have established by gifts made by this House of Commons to other Legislatures within the Commonwealth. Hon. Members will remember that in recent years we have presented Speakers' Chairs to the Houses of Representatives of Ceylon and New Zealand and to the National Assembly of Ghana, and a Mace to the House of Representatives of Australia. I am sure that we shall agree that in this House of Commons, where we are simply surrounded by gifts from other parts of the Commonwealth, gifts which are tributes to links of affection and fellowship, we should from time to time convey our own feelings and send similar good wishes to these other Legislatures.
Perhaps I may be allowed briefly to mention the story of this gift. On 4th August of this year my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, replying to the Leader of the Opposition, told the House that Her Majesty's Government proposed that Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, should offer to the House of Representatives of Sierra Leone the gift of a Mace for its Sneaker. It had, of course, been ascertained that that gift would be very welcome in Sierra Leone. The Mace itself has been completed and arrangements will, as usual, be made for it to be displayed before it is sent to Sierra Leone for presentation.
Naturally, the purpose of this gift is to mark Sierra Leone's attainment of full independence within the Commonwealth in April of this year and it will


bring with it our best wishes for Sierra Leone's happiness and prosperity.
Sierra Leone is a quite small country within the Commonwealth, but there are few indeed which have closer ties of friendship with this country and we are very happy to recognise it in this way. The Motion proposes that the presentation shall be made on behalf of the House of Commons. If—I am sure I should say, when—the Committee accepts this Motion, it will also pledge itself to honour the necessary Estimate, which I am told, with the expense of presentation, will be in the neighbourhood of £1,600.
As usual, the actual arrangements for presenting the gift will be made by Mr. Speaker, and I believe that he contemplates following the usual practice that the Mace should be presented by a small Parliamentary delegation which will visit Sierra Leone at the appropriate time by mutual agreement.
I am sure that the Committee will support this Motion.

Mr. Denis Healey: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I wish warmly to support the Motion.
About nine months have now passed since this House was happy unanimously to welcome a Bill by which Sierra Leone became an independent State within the Commonwealth, a State which is distinguished today by the example of racial harmony and democratic development which it provides to the world, and a State whose contribution to the Commonwealth we all look forward to with enthusiasm.
This House is always especially proud that so many Commonwealth countries have chosen to model their legislative procedures on the precedents set by the Mother of Parliaments. I think that we would all particularly agree that this week there is perhaps no more suitable symbol of the authority of the Mother of Parliaments than the Mace. However much we may argue about the precise source of the authority of the Mace, I think that recent events have underlined its profound importance to each and every one of us.
My right hon. Friends and I warmly support the arrangements which have been outlined by the Leader of the

House for presenting this Mace and sending our best wishes to the Parliament and people of Sierra Leone for their success and well-being at present and in the future.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I am sure that it would be the wish of hon. Members who belong to the Liberal Party to associate themselves with this Motion, if any Liberal were present in the Committee at the moment. By some oversight on their part, the Liberals are not present, but I should not like it to be thought in the world outside, or in Sierra Leone, that all the members of the Liberal Party in the House were not associated with this presentation. May I, therefore, take the very great liberty of speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party in associating it with this gift.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am not rising to make it clear that all parties in the House support this Motion, but merely to put to the Leader of the House a technical question. While heartily approving the speech he made and the purpose that he has declared, may I ask that he should explain to us the solution of this problem?
I think that the right hon. Gentleman said, at the end of his speech, that Mr. Speaker was to make all the arrangements for the dispatch of the Mace. How is it possible for that to be done when Mr. Speaker has no knowledge of what takes place in this Committee? I am sure that the Leader of the House will have the answer of that problem at his finger-tips and will be glad to give it to us.
Perhaps this question should be addressed to you, Sir Gordon. Will the dispatch of the Mace to Sierra Leone be accompanied by a handbook, perhaps written by the Chairman of Ways and Means, describing the Mace, its proper place and use?

Mr. Macleod: On the one point which concerns me, I have the answer at my finger-tips. We shall report this Resolution tomorrow. As soon as it is reported, Mr. Speaker will have full cognisance of everything that we have done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 6th December].

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(APPLICATION OF PART I.)

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out subsection (4).

The Chairman: This Amendment concerns both British protected persons and citizens of the Republic of Ireland. I would remind hon. Members that I have provisionally selected the following Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), in page 2, line 6, leave out from "to" to "citizens" in line 7, which relates to British protected persons only.
I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee, therefore, if, on this Amendment, discussion of British protected persons were excluded. if the debate does cover British protected persons then, clearly, I cannot call the following Amendment

Mr. Chapman: I am obliged to you, Sir Gordon.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. To avoid the repetition of a certain amount of confusion which arose when we were last in Committee on the Bill, may I ask you this? You have said that these Amendments are to be discussed together. [HON. MEMBERS: "Separately."] I beg your pardon; they are to be discussed separately.

Mr. Chapman: The procedure which you have outlined, Sir Gordon, is certainly convenient to hon. Members on this side of the Committee and I am sure that it will commend itself to hon. Members. It is that we should devote this discussion to the position of the Irish. May I make clear, in moving the Amendment, that we regard it as what I think Parliament and this Committee call a probing Amendment. The purpose is to find what are the Government's intentions relating to the various announcements made by the Home Secretary on

the future of the Irish under the Bill, and also to ask the Government certain questions which arise as a result of the statements the Home Secretary has made from time to time.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants to make progress with the Bill and wants to keep the temperature of the Committee down this week. We hope that he will respond in the way we intend in putting forward this Amendment and not try to distort our intention to follow Parliamentary procedure, which means that this is the obvious way in which to raise the question of the Irish. Lest there should be any confusion at all about the views of the Opposition on the question of the Irish under the Bill, I quote what my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said on 5th December:
I want to make it perfectly clear that none of us on this side wants to keep out the Irish. Indeed, our intention is the opposite; we want them all in.
He meant all parts of the Commonwealth. He went on to say:
We want them all to have the same present right to come in, but we say that it would be monstrous to give the Irish, who are not Commonwealth citizens, who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a preferential status over those who are."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 5th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1262.]
This fully expresses the views of the Opposition and I hope that it carries the views of some hon. Members opposite.
4.15 p.m.
We have had announcements from the Home Secretary. The main one was made during the Second Reading of the Bill. He knows that this matter has now become the most controversial part of the Bill. I remind the Home Secretary of what The Times said on the day after he had made the announcement. This summary of the situation should be in our minds when we are discussing this matter. In an editorial headed, "From bad to worse," The Times quoted my right hon. Friend as getting the Home Secretary
firmly between two horns of a dilemma, one of which was hypocrisy and the other bungling,
The article also said:
For Mr. Butler there seems no escape between them…Finally, we have to consider whether the Bill, eviscerated as it is


qua a non-discriminatory measure by the exemption of the Irish, is any longer capable of being acceptable at all with any shred of decency. Even though we realize of the fullest extent the disadvantages and dangers of full integration, the answer must be that it is not. If it were accepted in this form, we should be branded as a people to whom principle must in all matters give way to expediency.
Those are very powerful words from The Times in condemnation of the Home Secretary's pronouncement on the Bill. All of us in our political lives have to take hard knocks and we have to tale criticisms that our views are wrong, but I cannot remember a time when a Home Secretary, a right hon. Gentleman who has held such exceedingly important positions in the Government of this country, with the approval of a first leader in The Times, has been virtually called a hypocrite and bungler, or both, and a man whose actions would lead to this country being branded as a people who gave way on all matters of principle to expediency.
Those words were, indeed, hard words. I have been wondering whether the Home Secretary, in years to come, will not have great cause to regret the action that he has taken in this part of the Bill, which has brought condemnation from many sections of the population.
I shall read another quotation which I am sure is typical of what is being said in the country. This is what happened in a Methodist church in my constituency. A letter reached me yesterday from the secretary of the church, the society steward, as he is called. He enclosed a petition signed in the church porch by the ordinary members of the congregation as they left their Sunday morning service. It was a petition in support of a resolution which was read this weekend in every Methodist church in Birmingham. I am not misleading the Committee by quoting parts of it, but I wish to read the centre section of the letter, because that is the core.
The petition says that the Bill
will have a distastrous effect throughout the Commonwealth, where it will be seen as colour discrimination. We appeal to Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Bill. We believe that any control of immigration that may be necessary should be not by legislation, but by consultation and should be fairly applied to all people seeking to enter the United Kingdom without regard to country of origin, race, colour or religion.

This is typical of the wave of indignation which has been sweeping the country and which not only has caused church people and others to condemn this aspect of the Government's policy, but also, and very significantly, has caused many of our leading newspapers to swap sides on the Bill. We had lukewarm condemnation of the Bill or outright support of it before this announcement about the exemption of the Irish, but as soon as the exemption was announced, mostly the newspapers followed The Times—"From bad to worse", "bungling", or "hypocrisy", or whatever one chooses to call it. The leading newspapers condemned the Government's attitude and the turn of events taken when the Irish were excluded.
Has the Home Secretary seen a direct result in one part of the Commonwealth of his decision to exempt the Irish? I speak of Jamaica, because I know a good deal about it. I was astounded by what happened in Jamaica after the decision to exempt the Irish. It was reported that in Jamaica there was a procession of protests, and that this procession filled the whole width of a street in Kingston. As the streets in Kingston are not unduly narrow, there must have been many people abreast. It took them fifteen minutes to pass a checkpoint. This must have been quite a procession. The speeches made at the mass meeting which followed were in condemnation of the British Government's racial Bill, its colour-prejudiced legislation, and that is entirely based on the obvious interpretation which any member of the Commonwealth must make of the Government's decision to exempt the Irish.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: Was this meeting merely to protest against the Irish being left out, or was it not rather a meeting of protest against the whole rotten Bill?

Mr. Chapman: The point is that the size of the demonstration was due to the fact that it had become clear that this is a racially discriminatory Bill. My hon. Friend is right that there is intense feeling throughout the West Indies about the Bill as a whole.
After that introduction I come to the specific points which I wish to raise. First, will the Home Secretary give some


idea of the size of the continual immigration from Ireland? Throughout the discussions on the Bill we have been in the difficulty that no one has known the precise figures about anything. One of the disgraceful things about the Government's introduction of the Bill is that half the figures which are fundamental to the Bill apparently have never been collected.
In respect of the Irish, the best estimate I am able to find is in the Report of the Oversea Migration Board, which indicates that the figure is about 70,000 annually.

Mr. Harold Gurden: Before the hon. Member presses on with the point, will he make it clear whether he is trying to represent, in his references to public feeling and the newspapers, that the majority of people are against the Bill? Does he not realise that a vast number of people, certainly many from his constituency, are in favour of the Bill, even though for the time being a way cannot be found round the Irish question?

Mr. Chapman: On matters of principle, like The Times, I do not give way to expediency. I hope that hon. Members opposite agree with that point of view.
I will come to the precise position of the Irish in a moment. The figures seem to indicate an annual influx of about 70,000. The exemption of 70,000 out of the figure of 170,000 given by the Over-sea Migration Board means that the Home Secretary is throwing away a large part of the whole case about the size of the inflow of migrants. That is what happens when he exempts the Irish, and it makes nonsense of the Bill. In other words, the Government are dropping 70,000 out of 170,000, nearly half, light-heartedly, with a few sentences suggesting that it makes no difference to all the remainder of the legislation.

Mr. John Hobson: rose—

Mr. Chapman: I prefer not to give way. The hon. Member can raise the point later. I should like to get on with my speech.
If the Government use the powers in the remainder of the Bill to exclude coloured migrants from the Commonwealth, is it not possible that there will be a stepping up of migrants From Ireland? I do not particularly grumble about that. The Opposition are glad to have the migrants and believe that we should be making room for them and providing houses so that everybody we need to do work will also be housed. On the other hand, it will make more than nonsense of the Bill if the effect of cutting down the number of coloured migrants is to put up by 50 per cent. the number of Irish who come here every year. Is not this bound to be the case if we cut down the number of migrants from the Commonwealth?
Exactly what is to happen about the situation which a number of my hon. Friends raised during the debate in Committee on 5th December? They asked what would happen if Commonwealth countries begin to evade the Bill by unloading their boats at Southern Irish ports, and then bringing the migrants overland to Northern Ireland or to Irish ports and across to this country. What would happen? The Home Secretary said, first, that he had read in the Irish newspapers that the Southern Irish Government were intending to impose control at their ports. I quote what he said from column 1185 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
What I have read in the newspapers is the statement made by the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic that they were intending to impose control at their ports. No sort of persuasion or anything else has come into the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1961 Vol. 650, c. 1186.]
I wonder. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a firm assurance that the British Government—I do not mean the word offensively, but I must use it—have not tried to blackmail the Irish Government into imposing this control in their ports? Is it not obvious that gentle hints have been dropped in Southern Ireland, "If you allow this sort of thing to happen through your ports we shall have to find a way of controlling the influx of the Irish people into the United Kingdom"? Is it not obvious that this is what happened? Would it not be better for the reputation both of the Home Secretary and of Parliament to "come clean,"


as it were, and to tell us that it has happened and that there is no point in concealing the fact that these gentle hints have been dropped.

Mr. William Yates: rose—

Mr. Chapman: I have given way several times and I prefer not to give way again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) raised a specific question when he asked:
What happens to the Jamaican who arrives in Cork and comes to this country from Dublin? Will he be in the same position as the Irish in the way the Home Secretary has now described it?
This is the significant part of the Home Secretary's reply:
Our general intention is to impose a control on Commonwealth Immigrants…
He was including the Irish.
I can only trust to the ingenuity of the immigration officers to deal with any situation that may arise."—-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1189.]
What does that mean? Does it mean that the immigration officers are to watch over the boatloads coming from Ireland—because that is precisely what the Home Secretary said? He will have immigration officers watching whether there are any black faces coming over from Ireland. Is this so? If so, we should be told. Is it the Government's intention to make a new departure in the system of control of entry from Northern and Southern Ireland whereby migrants or people travelling from their ports are watched and checked in at British ports by immigration officers?
If so, that is very important indeed, and it makes such a big departure from our established practice that I think that, first, we ought to know, and, secondly, the Northern Ireland Government ought to know about it; and have it made clear to us how the whole matter is developing.
4.30 p.m.
My third question is what is the use of keeping in the Bill the Irish provision with regard to deportation? What the Home Secretary has said is that there is no point in trying to control the entry of the Irish; it is an impossibility. What, in heaven's name, is to happen about the Irishman who, after committing a

crime here, is sent back to the Republic of Ireland? Surely, he will be able to catch the next boat back again? Or, if not from the Republic, he can go into Northern Ireland, and catch the next boat but one back again. I do not see how we can possibly work this section on deportation if there is no possibility of preventing the criminal from coming back again.
That leads me to my fourth question. What is the use of saying, both to us and to Ireland, that reserve powers are being kept in the Bill to control the flow, if nothing can be done about it? After all, the right hon. Gentleman has been quoting precedents back to the time of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was Home Secretary in the Labour Government, and, building himself on fifty years' administrative experience, saying that nothing can be done. What is the use, therefore, of pretending that these reserve powers in the Bill to control the Irish mean anything at all?
The last question I want to ask is precisely what the Home Secretary meant when, in speaking on 5th December, he attempted to tell us what the Government propose to do about the future? I will quote from column 1186. I am wondering what it all boils down to. He said:
We propose between now and the time when this Measure needs to be renewed to take every possible precaution to obtain information about the scope and nature of the problem of Irish immigration. We intend to do that by investigating the insurance cards laid with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance; to approach it through the records of the Ministry of Labour, and, if necessary, to approach it by using the power contained in the First Schedule to impose the need for landing Cards.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1186.]
Again, could we have this clearly explained? Is it to be the case that, after the passing of the Bill, people coming from Northern and Southern Ireland will have to have landing cards? The question I have already asked about immigration officers is relevant, because it means that there is to be a full-scale new system of checks at the ports of entry from Ireland. Further, what is it that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to collect by way of information?
I have tried to put these questions courteously. I think that we ought to


receive full and frank answers about the future of Ireland under the Bill. Before I conclude, I want to say that we have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite—and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) is one of them—a great deal of complaint about the position of coloured migrants with respect to law-breaking, health checks and all the rest. The hon. Member has implied, and I do not think that I am treating him unfairly in saying this, that the average Commonwealth coloured citizen is not law-abiding, or that, at any rate, his rate of indulgence in crime is above the average, and he implied, too, that his health is below standard.
I reject that answer, and so, thank heaven, does the Home Secretary as well. I think that we are entitled to point out that we are not throwing stones, but that it is important to point out to hon. Members opposite who have taken this stand against coloured immigrants, that there are social and health problems with all immigrants, but they are not on the scale which the hon. Member makes out. But if these problems do exist, we obviously want to make it clear that they exist as much in respect of the Irish as of any coloured Commonwealth citizen. That is not to blacken the name of the Irish, but frankly to admit the situation.
I say to hon. Members opposite that they will do themselves a great deal more good in the country if they "come clean" on this issue, too, and admit that social problems exist, though I do not think that they are on such a large scale that need cause panic at all, but that, in so far as they do exist, they exist independent of the countries of origin.
I take one more quotation from The Times, again from the day after the Government's intentions about the Irish had been announced during the Second Reading of the Bill. It was the result of an investigation made by The Times in Birmingham, and it was headlined, "Wicked To Apply Curbs Only on Coloured."
It ain't fair', a Jamaican labourer said outside Handsworth Employment Exchange today; and that will be a polite summing-up of the way many people are thinking in Birmingham. The Government proposal to exclude Republican Irishmen from the terms of the Immigration Bill seems likely to be widely

unpopular in the dingy and disturbed streets of the city's multi-racial areas.
The Times goes on to say in part of this report that vicars and other people who are concerned with social problems in that big city said quite frankly that the Irish are just as much, if not more, a problem than any coloured immigrant coming to this country. Let us get that on the record. I am not suggesting that it is the Jamaican or the man with a black face who causes all the trouble.
Hon. Members opposite, by their light handed attitude, are themselves making a mockery of our multi-racial Commonwealth. It is true that people coming to these islands, whether from Ireland or elsewhere, meet conditions in which they do not immediately fit into the higher social standards of this country. We ought to think that we should try to educate them to accept our standards, if higher, and not give way to panic, as so many hon. Members opposite have done, the moment problems arise.
The case which we put to the Committee is that the Bill has become a racial Measure by this exclusion of nearly one half of the immigrants coming to Britain, as listed by the Oversea Migration Board. It is a disgrace that that has happened. It means that Britain's name is being trampled upon abroad, and that in many parts of the Commonwealth faith in our protestations about the absence of colour prejudice in our society is being shaken. It is disgusting that this part of the Government's case has ever been revealed in the way it has been dragged in as an afterthought by the Home Secretary.
"We suddenly discovered that we cannot apply this provision of the Bill", the right hon. Gentleman said. This is not the way to treat the British Parliament in introducing legislation, nor is it the way to treat the proudly multiracial members of the British Commonwealth.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) will be aware that, although I do not by any means accept what he said, many of us on this side of the Committee will be grateful to him for having raised this aspect of the Bill, and for the broad terms in which he, and the Chair, have enabled us to discuss it.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accepts, at least I hope he does, that many of us have suffered a degree of perplexity over this issue, and this is not only confined to these or those benches, but is very widely felt. I think that it is, in fact, excusable perplexity. It is true that months ago, when the proposals were first being discussed, the Government publicly warned the country that the Irish constituted a problem, and much that has been done and said since then has apparently been designed to justify this forecast. It is hardly reduced by the decision to include in the Bill the subsection which the Amendment seeks to delete, and yet continued emphasis has been placed on the difficulty of producing a practical scheme to implement it immediately.
That this should have provoked some feeling is really hardly surprising. It is obvious, and the hon. Gentleman expressed the point in his speech, that some would interpret it in some quarters as discrimination on a colour basis. Less obvious, but no less strong, is the feeling against discrimination in favour of the Irish Republic and against the rest of the Commonwealth. This is a rather different point. I do not want to dwell on it, but it is not difficult to account for. The Irish Republic was one of the first English-speaking countries to contract out of the Commonwealth on grounds which suited it, and its conduct, though emphatically not that of its sons, in the Second World War was somewhat less than distinguished.
On those two considerations alone the Government might expect a volume of feeling on this issue which cannot be lightly dismissed. Yet, up to now, on the indications that we have had, the Government have felt that, administratively, it would be very difficult to meet it in the way in which some hon. Gentlemen would like to see it met.
The grounds may be solid, and without technical knowledge it is difficult to contest them, yet I am a little perplexed, for this reason. We operate, not unsuccessfully, a close immigration policy for aliens. This puts a big question mark over some, but not all, of the points made against an effective system for administering Irish immigration. Either Ireland represents a bigger hole

in the aliens immigration net than we think, or the difficulties advanced against any system of effectively controlling them landing here must be a little less than they would appear. All this leads one to search for a more rational explanation of the Government's attitude.
The nub of the Bill lies not in the Clause we are now discussing, but in Clause 2, and, in particular, subsection (2) and, quite specifically—this will give the Committee the clue that I have in mind—the last words on page (i) of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which run:
and to applicants outside these categories subject to any limit which the Government may from time to time consider necessary.
That seems to me to be the nub, and to this extent the Committee is in a difficulty in discussing this point because the heart of the Bill will be discussed later in our proceedings. No doubt when we reach that stage we shall hear in perhaps more detail how it is proposed to implement this provision for
applicants outside these categories subject to any limit which the Government may from time to time consider necessary.
I put it no higher than this for the moment. I think it possible that the Government may envisage something rather different from what most of us have been led, or have led ourselves, to expect. I am only thinking aloud, and it may be contradicted. They may feel that if and when the dust created by the Bill has died down, and the pressure to beat the gun has eased, the pressure of immigrants on this country may be such that only the lightest of controls will be necessary.
Indeed, it is not altogether impossible to envisage a situation in which there is practically no restriction on the number of immigrants entering this country. Even if it is not felt, it may in some circles, be hoped. I do not quarrel with that, nor, I think, would a number of other hon. Members. At the same time, and this we have all recognised, circumstances may arise when, for economic reasons, a more stringent attitude must be adopted towards immigrants.
4.45 p.m.
This is purely surmise, but it perhaps offers some clue to this situation. I have a feeling that it is those circumstances,


and not the present circumstances, to which the Bill is mainly directed in this respect. The proposals for health checks and deportation stand good in these times as in other times, but they do not represent the most controversial aspects of the Bill. Perhaps, therefore, it is not altogether fanciful to envisage a situation immediately ahead, when things remain roughly as they are today, when the teeth of the Bill, or what appear to be the teeth, will in fact do very little biting.
It is obvious that if the situation should arise—and it is by no means impossible—when Commonwealth immigrants fall to a level of a year or two ago, below, that is, the unusual level of 1961, the teeth will not be used at all. The Bill may cool the ardour of some aspiring immigrants. This leads me to think that it may be possible that what the Bill is aimed at is not so much restriction, but reserve powers.
Could it be that what we are really considering are emergency powers? I assure the Committee that I am merely speculating and am prepared to be shot down about this. If this is anywhere near the mark, a great deal which has appeared mysterious, in particular in relation to the Amendment, ceases to be mysterious, because this dog, it is devoutly hoped, will do nothing in the night. That is the mysterious incident.
Obviously, the Clause which the Amendment seeks to amend must be in the Bill, because if our economic circumstances change, the Government—Labour or Conservative—might be confronted with a situation in which severe restriction became necessary, and perhaps quite quickly, and Ireland could and would, have to be checked, whether Ulster liked it or not.
But that hypothesis carries another meaning. If, in present circumstances it is believed, or hoped, that this restraint, when it comes to the point, will operate very lightly indeed, or possibly not at all, then the Irish policy which has been offered to us becomes not altogether inconsistent. Obviously, there is little point in now creating a situation with passports and all the rest which Ulster would fight, and would be right to fight, to establish control over the Irish which may not have to be applied to the other Commonwealth immigrants.

Mr. Chapman: I should like to think that the Bill was a dead letter, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but may I draw his attention to what the Home Secretary said on Second Reading? He said:
Most people, I think, would agree that eventually an influx on the present scale would have to be controlled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 687.]
The right hon. Gentleman was not talking about figures rising. He was talking about the present figure.

Mr. Deedes: We have been led to understand that the figure is in the region of 130,000 this year. It all depends on what scale one has in mind. It is something about which we have not had a clear picture.
Neither is there much point in devising a system—and here I have great sympathy with my right hon. Friend—with elaborate administrative machinery, possibly involving the creation of additional penalties in this country, to exercise control which will not be seriously applied elsewhere, if it can possibly be avoided.
If these surmises are anywhere near the mark, it is not difficult to perceive the nature of my right hon. Friend's dilemma, for, while a hint to this effect would ease the minds of many who are concerned over the apparent discrimination in favour of the Irish Republic, that hint would also provoke reactions elsewhere. It would not be well received by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).
I readily recognise that here the Bill stands on a point somewhere between Scylla and Charybdis. It is a very unenviable position and to that extent my speculations may appear rather unfair. They are not so intended. What I have said is said with this consideration in mind.
I do not think that the Government can back this horse both ways. Irish horses are notoriously awkward customers. They have a way of jumping Irish walls, but are not so good in English hands. In seeking to obtain the best of both worlds we could be led perhaps into the position of getting the worst of both worlds.
If, at the back of the Government's mind, is a hope and expectation that the main provision of the Bill—the issue


which has provoked the main controversy—may not have to be applied to anything like the extent this year's figures or our general approach to the Bill had led us to believe, the Government would be well advised to bring hon. Members nearer to that realisation.
In that event, the Irish problem does not disappear, but it tends to diminish, to be a much less significant point than the hon. Member for Northfield had in mind when introducing the Amendment. It diminishes to a point when the Government's attitude would appear, I think even to hon. Members opposite, as rational and logical.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Has the hon. Member considered the possibility of Irishmen being recognised by their voices? They are quite distinctive. Surely a scheme could be devised whereby Irishmen could be recognised at the ports in this way. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hoghes) has been taken for Irish.

Mr. Deedes: I am half Irish, so the hon. Gentleman may be able to recognise my voice. I am not suggesting that anyone is being misled. I am merely asking whether we can be informed about expectations and how far the Government really expect that the main provisions of the Bill will bite. Such a point really ought not to provoke uproar. What I and some hon. Friends of mine desire to see is greatly improved arrangements for administration, welfare, and, above all, housing these people, which would, of course, redound greatly to the benefit of our own people as well as to the migrants.
It may be asked what action should hon. Members take regarding the Amendment. I can only offer this advice: if the Government are ready to declare that I am wrong in my surmise, and make plain that the operation of these restrictions is certain and that the provisions will bite from the word go, then hon. Members who feel strongly about the Irish point must carefully consider their position. But, on the other hand, if the Government are willing to say that I am right then it does not seem that any hon. Member has much to worry about, because the Government are obviously right in feeling that there

will be no discrimination between the Irish and the rest.

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman cannot go as far as that. He is making it sound far too easy. His right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) put his finger on it the other day, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have agreed with his right hon. Friend when he said:
It is the aliens and the Irish at whom we ought to look more than at the Commonwealth citizens. The Commonwealth citizens constitute only about 1 per cent. of the population. The percentages of aliens and Irish are clearly very much greater."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 753–4.]
In other words, if we are to have a Bill which discriminates at all we cannot really start by making it discriminate against only one section.

Mr. Deedes: If we are to have a Bill which includes powers against all members of the Commonwealth, including Ireland, that is one thing. But if the Bill, as it now stands, does not in effect operate against all members of the Commonwealth to the extent which some hon. Members have led themselves to believe—and that is something on which only the Government can guide us—what is the fuss about? For myself, I find it difficult to decide on this aspect until I hear what the Government are ready to say on Clause 2 (2). That is the nub of the Bill. So much, it seems to me, depends on it.
I think that we must have clarification on this important point. I hope that it is accepted that on this the Government, even at risk, should be prepared to offer us their innermost thoughts. This is required if the minds of hon. Members are to be clarified. I urge the Government to express these views, because they owe it to the Bill, to the Committee and to the Commonwealth.

Miss Jennie Lee: I hope that our deliberations will not give the impression that we in this Committee are anti-Irish. I am wholly opposed to the Bill and I see no reason, taking the overall figures of Britain's population and industrial needs now, and what we can reckon them to be in the future, why we should even begin to sully our good name in this way.
I urge hon. Members to remember that the problem which faces us today in bringing migrant labour from the West Indies, Africa or Ireland is trivial compared with the difficulties with which we had to contend in the past, and which we overcame. You are a Welshman, Mr. Thomas, and, therefore, you must know about the Irish riots in Wales. I am sure that you know the history of Irish immigration into Wales. I know a little of that history and I also know a little about it in the Scottish areas.
When we speak about immigration today we do not speak about a fierce religious war. Religion hardly comes into the picture—but religion was very much in the picture a hundred years ago, and even more recently, when the immigrants were the friendless and penniless Irish. I am not distinguishing between immigrants from the Republic of Ireland and the North, for there was no such division then. Both had this in common: they were under the rule of English landlords—Conservative landlords, however one spells "Conservative". There was hunger and oppression on their farms, driving them to emigrate.
I remember my grandfather, in the Scottish coalfields, talking of the civil lads who, when they arrived from Ireland, were gentle in their language and said, "Yes, Sir" and "No, Sir" and that they were thankful for the wages they were given. They were wholly innocent of the fact that when they came to Scotland and Wales they were used as strike and wage breakers. They were regarded as a threat to their religion and their living standards.
Thus, today, the problem with which we have to deal is easy compared with the physical and psychological problems of a hundred years ago. Hon. Members may know the story of Tredegar, in Wales. Probably the fiercest riot that took place in 1857 was when the Welsh people drove the Irish out of Tredegar. They banded together and some families offered sanctuary to a few Irish families and their children. I am proud to be associated with a family that offered that sanctuary. It must be remembered that religion—Catholicism—entered into that matter very strongly.
But today the word "religion"has not even been mentioned. The word inflamed certain feelings a century or less ago, but when we are now talking about the West Indians, Jamaicans or the Irish we never mention religion. We have learned to live and let live.
5.0 p.m.
We have a powerful trade union movement today. When an immigrant comes to this country, whatever the colour of his skin, he has to work under trade union conditions. He is often given the worst paid, dirtiest and least desired job by those who are already established citizens, but he is not wage breaking. Our trade union movement can deal with matters such as that. The misery of the past was that the Scottish and Welsh workers—this was also true in parts of England—feared the immigrant because he was a threat to their very carefully established standards of living.
Therefore, what are we making all the fuss about today? The Irish who came in during the last century at first had a lower standard of living, in the main, than the established Welshman and Scotsman. But we should respect them, since one of the reasons why their standard of living was so low was that they were remembering fathers and mothers who were hungry on farms in Ireland. Like the Indians and West Indians today, they were sending money home. They were sufficiently unselfish not to say when they left their own countries, "We are finished with our country. We do not care about our families any more. Whatever we make we shall spend on ourselves". They are all the better citizens because so many of them, when they come to this country, still think of those they have left behind.
What is the later history concerning Irish immigrants? They came to the poorest industrial parts of our country, friendless and penniless, but before very long they were leaders in our community. They became members of our school boards, town councils and county councils. They became trade union leaders. One of them, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), is sitting close to me now. They were sent to the House of Commons as Labour Members of Parliament.
The emergence of the Labour movement meant that they were on the ramparts fighting for the best possible conditions, not only for the Irish, but for all of us. In a generation or two the outcasts, those who had no worldly advantages, those who had been forced to come here by pressure of poverty in their native lands, became real assets in this country. They helped to build up our industrial wealth and their record in the Labour movement shows the contribution that they made to improving our social standards.
If we did not have this fussy, panicky, small-minded, reactionary attitude on the benches opposite, I am sure that it would not be long before some of the immigrants from the West Indies, India, Africa and elsewhere had the record that the Irish immigrants had if they were allowed time to settle in this country. I hope that the Committee and the country will treat with the anger, contempt and scorn that it deserves every aspect of this Bill.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): It might be convenient to the Committee if I said something now about Her Majesty's Government's view of this Amendment. I trust that the hopes of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), to whose speech I listened with interest, for proper integration in future will prove to be well founded. However, I would point out to her that this is not a Bill to stop all immigration. It is a Bill to prevent excessive immigration, immigration to a degree which this country cannot absorb and with which it cannot cope. We have taken the view—many people may disagree with it—that the time has come when the Government should be armed with powers to control immigration—not to stop it, but to control it.
The question raised by the Amendment is whether the Bill, which brings within its scope Commonwealth citizens and inhabitants of the Colonies, should include or exclude citizens of Southern Ireland. Although one would have thought from the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) that the Bill, as it stood, excluded the Southern Irish, the effect of his Amendment is to exclude the

operation of the Bill in relation to the Southern Irish. To the Amendment there could, and should, be only one answer. If we are to take power to control Commonwealth immigration, it would be quite wrong not to take power to control immigration from Southern Ireland. To omit them from the purview of Part I of the Bill would indeed be to put them in a privileged position. [Interruption.] I am dealing with the content of the Bill. I would ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield to listen to me with the patience with which I listened to him. I will come to his general observations later, but I am now dealing with what the Amendment seeks to do.
As I say, to omit the Southern Irish from Clause 1 would be to put them in a privileged position. It would be invidious and anomalous to take power to control immigration from the Commonwealth and Colonies, to take power to control the entry into this country of British subjects, and not to take power to control the entry of people who, although inhabitants of part of the British Isles, are not British subjects.
Those of my hon. Friends of whose concern about the position of the Southern Irish I am fully aware would have very strong ground for criticism of this part of the Bill if the Southern Irish were not within its orbit.

Mr. Charles Pannell: This is double-talk.

The Attorney-General: That is the only question raised by the Amendment. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment and to retain the power to control the immigration of the Southern Irish in the Bill. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Northfield seems to think that that is a laughing matter. Although the hon. Member may call it a probing Amendment, what it seeks to do is to exclude the reference in Clause 1 (4) to the Southern Irish. Of course, as one would expect, the debate has ranged far wider than the question raised by the Amendment.
Some hon. Members feel—my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) gave expression to this feeling last week—that, unless control of Southern Irish immigrants is exercised, this is a colour Bill. As I said then,


I cannot share the view that a Bill which applies to the whole of the Commonwealth can properly be described as a colour Bill if control is not exercised of the Southern Irish for reasons which have nothing to do with colour. This is a general Bill giving general powers, and its character is not altered by the manner in which the powers are exercised.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has drawn attention to the inherent difficulties of controlling immigration from Southern Ireland. They are formidable. We could control landings at the English ports, and other ports of entry, such as Holyhead, of passengers coming direct from Southern Ireland without very great difficulty. But it is no use doing that and at the same time leaving the door wide open to evasion. One would have to control the border between the Republic and Ulster and that would be a very expensive and difficult operation and not likely to be 100 per cent. effective. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Northfield seems to think that that is a laughing matter. The alternative is to control the passage between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is, of course, possible to do that. Such control existed between 1939 and 1952. I cannot speak from personal experience of it, but to me control over the movement of people between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is just as distasteful as control would be over the movement of Scotsmen to England or of Scotsmen to Wales, if any Scotsman wished to go there.

Mr. John Diamond: rose—

The Attorney-General: I do not know whether they do or not.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): If the Attorney-General does not give way, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) must resume his seat.

Mr. Diamond: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was giving way.

The Attorney-General: I did not notice that the hon. Gentleman had risen to his feet, but I will give way to him.

Mr. Diamond: I am most grateful. For the benefit of every hon. Member, would the Attorney-General explain why he has not exactly those same feelings concerning immigration from Trinidad and elsewhere?

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall continue with my speech, in the course of which I may answer some of the questions which have been put to me.
I was dealing with the setting up of control between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I think that it is true to say that, between 1939 and 1952, that caused very great irritation. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it should and would require a very powerful and compelling reason to justify its reintroduction. It might be preferable, if the circumstances warranted it, to exercise control along the Ulster Border.
Power is taken by Order in Council under Clause 3 (4) to adapt the First Schedule to entry to Northern Ireland by land. In my submission, it is right to take that power. Having decided that the time has come when we should take a general power to exercise control over immigration, it is no use taking that power to put a fence round three sides of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland if we do not have power to put up the fourth fence if required. To exercise control at all ports except English ports to which people come from Southern Ireland would be to leave the door wide open for uncontrolled immigration from the Commonwealth, which it is one of the purposes of the Bill to control.
If the Republic of Ireland imposed controls on immigration into the Republic similar to those in the Bill, obviously it would not be necessary for us to impose controls over traffic from the Republic in order to control Commonwealth immigration. For that purpose, we can rely on our neighbour's fence.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: Would my right hon. and learned Friend explain the way in which that would work? Would the Irish Government act as agents for us in controlling Commonwealth citizens according to specifications that we lay down? For example, would they be allowed a proportion of the quota and would it be


said that they might let in 5 per cent. of the quota, or how would it work?

5.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I was going on to indicate how it would work. It would work similarly to the way it works with regard to aliens. We do not exercise control over the Irish ports in relation to aliens in the same way as the Southern ports, because the Irish have a similar control which they operate in the exercise of their powers of government over the immigration of aliens. My point is that concerning Commonwealth immigration, there is no need for erecting the fence on the west side of our country if the Irish Republic erects a similar fence controlling immigration into Southern Ireland.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not constitutionally just as wrong for a Government to try to legislate against Irishmen coming to England via Northern Ireland and crossing that part of the fence as to legislate against Irishmen coming to England through Canada or New Zealand? Is not the whole thing constitutionally wrong?

The Attorney-General: I do not think so. I was not dealing at that moment with immigration of citizens of the Irish Republic to this country. I was dealing with Commonwealth immigration. I merely make the point that if the Government of the Irish Republic of their own volition do what they have done in relation to aliens—that is, to pass legislation providing for control over immigration similar, it may not be in all respects, but in substance, to that which we seek to impose by the Bill—the need for a fence on the west side of Great Britain becomes unnecessary.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: rose—

The Attorney-General: May I continue? I know that we are in Committee and may speak more than once, but I am trying to put forward a reasoned argument, in the course of which I may deal with the point that the hon. Member wants to put.
If that happens, if the Irish Republic does that, the problem which we have to consider comes down to whether it is necessary in the interests of the United

Kingdom to impose controls on Southern Irish immigration. I know that some hon. Members feel that if that is not done, this will appear to be a colour Bill, although, as I have said, that is not a correct description of a Bill which applies to the whole of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The Attorney-General has missed the point. He is speaking about three sides of a fence and leaving the fourth side undefended or uncontrolled. Is he not entirely under a misapprehension when he talks about a four-sided fence and leaving one side open? Surely, the fence has far more sides than that. It has Canadian, New Zealand and Australian sides.

The Attorney-General: I was not talking about the number of sides that a fence has. It usually has two sides. I was talking about the number of fences that will need to be put up. I was using the analogy that we can erect a fence, if need be, around the whole of Great Britain; we can erect a fence round the whole of Ulster. The point I was making, which, I hope, the hon. and learned Member will appreciate, is that there is no need for a fence in relation to immigration from Irish parts into English ports to prevent Commonwealth immigration to this country if the Irish enact legislation which is broadly similar to ours. [Interruption.] May I continue? I ask the referee—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell)—to keep quiet for a minute. If that happens, if the Irish enact that legislation, the problem comes down to this—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Northfield has made his speech. He might do me the courtesy of listening to mine.

Mr. Chapman: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member knows that he must resume his seat if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way.

Mr. Chapman: I thought the Attorney-General had given way.

The Temporary Chairman: He did not give way until I rose.

The Attorney-General: If that happens, the problem—

Mr. Peter Tapsell: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The same applies to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell). I remind hon. Members that we are in Committee and it is possible for hon. Members to speak more than once when their turn comes.

Mr. Diamond: On a point of order. Do I gather, Mr. Thomas, that I, who have vainly endeavoured to catch the Chairman's eye on every Amendment, will have an opportunity and that you will not accept the Closure on this occasion?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is quite safe from the Closure as long as I am in the Chair.

The Attorney-General: I am glad to hear—

Mr. Tapsell: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat as long as the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is addressing the Committee does not wish to give way.

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. In view of your last statement, Mr. Thomas, might I move that you do not leave the Chair?

The Attorney-General: I hope you will not accept that Motion, Mr. Thomas, or, at least, that you will not leave the Chair until after I have finished what I am saying to the Committee.
I was trying to present a reasoned argument in relation to the Amendment. I began by dealing, as I was entitled to do, with exactly what the Amendment does. Then, I came on to deal with the wider aspects of the problem. I have dealt with one aspect and I should be obliged to the Committee if I could be allowed to develop the argument in relation to the rest. I am trying to put it as shortly and as clearly as I can. I appreciate that many members of the Committee may not agree with the argument, but, at least, I invite them to allow me to present it.
I had said what the problem was on the basis that the Irish Republic had legislated to similar effect as this legis

lation. I am dealing with it only on that hypothesis. if the Irish Republic does that, the problem which we have to consider is whether it is necessary in the interests of the United Kingdom to impose controls on Southern Irish immigration.

Mr. Fletcher: rose—

The Attorney-General: I shall not give way, because I want to follow on with this. I think I shall deal with the point that the hon. Member wishes to make. Speaking for myself, I would regard as a wholly inadequate reason for the imposition of controls against the Irish Republic the fear that if they were not imposed, this general Bill, applying to the Commonwealth as a whole, would be misrepresented to be a colour Bill, and a colour Bill only.

Mr. Fletcher: May I intervene before the right hon. and learned Gentleman passes on from that? He has addressed an argument to the Committee about what the position would be if the Free State passed certain legislation. What we are anxious to know is what negotiations have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Republic with regard to the Irish Republic passing such legislation.

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary informed the House of a statement made in the Dail with regard to that. What is much more important is, if there is legislation—we have to consider both possibilities when considering, the Bill—what form it takes. The point I was going on to make was that by its flexibility, the Bill provides for both eventualities. If the legislation is satisfactory from our point of view, so that there is no need to erect the fences to stop Commonwealth immigration on our west side, there will be no need to exercise some of the powers taken under the Bill. On the other hand, if that legislation is not satisfactory, there is, as I have indicated, in Clause 3 (4) and the First Schedule power to extend and apply the operation of the Bill. That is one possibility.

Mr. Robert Carr: rose—

The Attorney-General: The point I was making—

Hon. Members: Give way.

The Attorney-General: I have given way a great deal.

Hon. Members: Not to anybody on your own side.

The Attorney-General: We are in Committee and it would be perfectly possible for my hon. Friends, when I have sat down, to make their speeches and express their points of view. I propose, however, having given way a good deal, to carry on with my speech.
I know that some of my hon. Friends feel, and I respect their feelings, that to continue to allow completely unrestricted entry to the Irish when it is being taken away from Commonwealth citizens is wrong. They feel, I think, that some control should be devised to similar effect as that exercisable in relation to Commonwealth citizens. I want to say a word on that subject.
The natural place to control immigration is at the ports and airfields. The practical difficulties with regard to this have already been explained, but I should like to assure my hon. Friends and the Committee that we have carefully considered alternative steps that might possibly be taken. Earlier in our debates, my right hon. Friend drew attention to paragraph 5 (1) of the First Schedule, under which he has power to impose the requirement of landing and embarkation cards. The exercise of that power would not be a control of immigration, obviously not. The mere filling in of a landing or embarkation card is not a control of immigration. The information on those cards might, however, help in the proper assessment of the Southern Irish position. I understand that more information can be secured through the Ministry of National Insurance and the National Assistance Board and that it may be possible through those sources to build up a complete picture in relation to Southern Irish immigration. This will provide further statistical information, but it is not a control. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Northfield seems to find everything I say funny, and I regret it.
We could provide in the Bill that a Southern Irishman who entered the United Kingdom without having been examined by an immigration officer and who accepted employment within a specified period following the date of

his arrival without the permission of the Ministry of Labour would be guilty of an offence. The object of the Bill is not to prevent people working in this country, but to control their coming here in excessive numbers. It would be very Irish to impose a control on Southern Irishmen coming here and taking jobs while they would be free to come and stay here while unemployed. [Laughter.]

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Really!

The Attorney-General: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who apparently agrees with me that the objections to that alternative are powerful, should find that the objections sound so funny when I utter them. I agree with him. I think that the objections to that alternative show that it is not acceptable.
5.30 p.m.
As I want to show that we have considered possible alternatives, I should like to continue to deal with that possibility. If that provision were inserted in the Bill, we should have to provide for the case where the Irishman was refused permission to work. One could not keep him here indefinitely on National Assistance while making it a criminal offence to employ him. [Laughter.] I am glad that the Committee is in agreement with that. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that these are objections to an alternative course, which the Committee finds funny, but which are real. When we are asked to consider an alternative suggestion, I commend the Committee to bear in mind the objections to that.
There are other practical risks in relation to the adoption of any scheme of that sort, for the reason that, although we could define the offence quite clearly in the Bill, the difficulty of proving the commission of that offence by a Southern Irishman would be very great. We should have to put the onus of proof on the accused to show that he did not come from the Republic, otherwise we would not be able to prove that he had. [Laughter.] I am a little surprised that the Committee finds that so funny. I regard the putting of the onus on the defence on a criminal charge as a serious objection to the creation of that criminal charge.
In this connection it becomes even more serious when one realises that this charge of a notional offence might be preferred against an Irishman in Glasgow or Liverpool, or indeed anywhere else and the onus was placed upon him. I wanted to deal with that, in spite of the way it has been received by the Opposition, because I wanted to indicate to my hon. Friends that we had given serious consideration to that alternative and we had considered also the Safeguarding of Employment Act of Northern Ireland and had considered whether that too should be an alternative.

Mr. C. Pannell: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentlemen completed his sentence about the hypothetical Irishman. If he were in Edinburgh or Glasgow would he not come under the Scottish Office?

The Attorney-General: As I was saying, we had considered the Safeguarding of Employment Act of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Is not the whole of the present part of the Attorney-General's speech out of order, because he has admitted that he is attempting to legislate for the Irish Republic and for Northern Ireland, both of which have Governments who are mistress in their own house? The Attorney-General, therefore, is trying to legislate in a way contrary to the Government of Ireland Act.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): What the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has said may be an argument contrary to the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General, but the Attorney-General was quite in order in what he said.

The Attorney-General: I am glad to hear that, but I am disappointed that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has not followed my argument, because not one word of that argument has been directed to legislation for Northern Ireland.
I was saying that we had considered whether we could apply the Safeguarding of Employment Act of Northern Ireland to this country, and I was about to point

out that that is not a control of immigration but a control of employment. The conclusion to which we have come is that that would not work here, nor can I see how it could be adapted to work here. Under that Act an immigrant into Northern Ireland has to secure a work permit to each particular job, and he gets it only if no qualified Northern Ireland worker is available. If he receives a work permit he gets an insurance card which is specially marked to show that he has a permit to work. The employment in Northern Ireland of a Southern Irishman without such a permit is an offence.
In this country the numbers involved would be far larger than in Northern Ireland, where there are only 4,000 with work permits. In this country it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to identify those who required permits. To make provision of that sort would mean that one would have to make a new link between employment control and the National Insurance system, and a refusal of a permit to a Southern Irishman in this country would obviously mean a charge on public funds.
But the main objection to that alternative—an alternative which has been put forward by thoughtful people—is that it is not a control over immigration but a control over employment. If we are to have a control over immigration I find it difficult to envisage any satisfactory system of control which is not exercised at the point of entry. The Bill is right in Clause 1 in taking power to put a fence round Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chapman: It cannot be done.

The Attorney-General: Indeed one could do it. I had hoped to make that clear to the hon. Member, and if he had listened and had not laughed so much he would have seen it. One could do it. I make two points to the hon. Member. As far as Commonwealth immigration goes, there is no need to do it if the Republic of Ireland legislates—

Mr. Chapman: Blackmail.

The Attorney-General: It is the hon. Member and not I who is using the word "blackmail". We cannot compel


the Republic of Ireland to pass a particular piece of legislation. If the Republic of Ireland passed such legislation there would be no need to erect that fence on the west side to prevent Commonwealth immigration. There is no need to fence that side if our neighbours are prepared to put up a fence round their territory, but it is right that we should take the power to do so. It is right, despite the practical and real difficulties to which reference has been made, of exercising, for instance, control along the Ulster border, and in spite of the powerful objections to controlling passage from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
The Committee will appreciate that in the Bill we have taken power to erect a fence around the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not think that circumstances exist at present which warrant the immediate erection of such a fence, but the power to erect it is there and the question that arises on this Amendment, particularly, is whether that power should remain in the Bill or be taken out of it.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield referred throughout his speech to the exemption of the Irish. If we are to have a Bill of this kind at all there must be power to apply the control to the Irish. The hon. Member also asked what happens with regard to deportation to the Irish Republic. If the fence is to be put up then the person deported will, one hopes, be caught at the fence. If there is no such fence, one must rely on the deterrent effect of the fact that to return here after deportation is a criminal offence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) made a very interesting speech in which he put forward a number of hypotheses. To this extent I completely agree—that our approach has been that the time has come when any Government of this country should take power to prevent immigration. To what degree that power is to be exercised in the future depends on whether the present trend of immigration grows, stays constant or is reduced. Therefore, as we see it, it is right to seek to ensure, such as we can, a clear definition in this Bill coupled with the power of the Government flexibly used.
It may well be—one does not know—the matter can be reviewed in 1963—it may well be that in the years immediately ahead not much use need be made of this Bill. It may be that the occasion will arise for its use, but it would be wrong, in taking a general power of this sort—power to control immigration into Great Britain and Northern Ireland—not to make the Bill operable and take power to deal with citizens of the Irish Republic as well as with other possible immigrants.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Attorney-General began his speech with a point he has previously made—that this Bill is not intended to ban immigration but to check excessive immigration. This argument would have much more force—and I hope he will add that force—if he gave some idea of what the Government regard as excessive immigration. Does he regard the present rate as excessive? Does he intend, in order to stop excessive immigration, to cut down radically on the numbers coming in now, or does he intend to allow them to go up a little? Unless he tells us this, then his argument is just another one in the air and one which the Committee cannot take properly into account.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman put a very technical point against the Amendment. It was shadow boxing. This was the only way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) explained, in which we could raise these great and uncomfortable issues in debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said, we clearly do not want to keep the Irish out—we want to keep them in—but the Government have drafted the Bill in such a way that the only means by which we can make that clear is to move this Amendment. The Attorney-General was really making a purely technical point. I do not blame him for that. He is entitled to do so.
I am grateful to the Attorney-General, because he appeared before us in a completely new character. With few exceptions, I think that hon. Members on both sides have great regard for his rather forceful, ponderous and heavy form of argument, which he usually uses with great effect. We have not seen him before in the rôle of a comedian who


can make the Committee very happy. He reduced us to fits of laughter by explaining—for this is what he did—the absurdity of the Bill as presented to the Committee and, indeed, as it is still going to be if he has his way. He committed Irishism after Irishism. He shirked none of this good work. He went into enormous and whimsical detail to show that the Bill which he defends and which he is asking us to pass is as absurd as he told us. He reduced it to absurdity, and that was something for which we were very grateful to him.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield made clear, the last thing we want to do is to keep the Irish out. I want to make that clear, because, after the way in which the debates have gone, this matter may not be as obvious as it should be. We want the opposite. We do not want to keep out the Irish, but to exempt them de facto—which is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us we cannot help doing—seems to us, and to many hon. Members opposite, to have two grave defects following from it One is that it makes the Bill appear to be a colour-bar Bill. The other is that it makes it quite clearly and inescapably an anti-Commonwealth Bill. It means that we are giving to non-Commonwealth citizens—which is what the Irish are in the eyes of the law—great preference over Commonwealth citizens.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: As my right hon. Friend says that the Attorney-General was at such great pains to explain that that was going to be the position in practice anyhow, what is the objection to making it explicit in the Bill?

Mr. Gordon Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) can vote as he likes when the time comes. I personally would not want to commit myself to what would be open to the charge of discrimination. The fact that it is a de facto colour bar provision, and in theory and in law an anti-Commonwealth provision, is something that we cannot escape from.
The Attorney-General told us a lot about the possibilities of controls being imposed by the Government of the Republic of Ireland at their own ports upon immigration into their own country of Commonwealth citizens. The Home Secretary also told us a lot about this

on 5th December. If we take both these speeches together, the Government cannot escape the charge that they are trying to threaten the Government of Southern Ireland that, if they do not comply by doing this, they will run the risk of the United Kingdom Government imposing, at whatever cost, immigration controls upon the Southern Irish. On the 5th December the Home Secretary said:
No sort of persuasion or anything else"—
on the Irish Government—
has come into the matter.
We know the Home Secretary well enough to know that he would not have put such a sentence in if he was not using persuasion. Indeed, he disclosed it in other parts of his speech. Earlier in that speech he said that the Irish Government had indicated their readiness to put on controls. He said:
The main reason why we want to have this power in reserve is that, if the Government of the Republic of Ireland do not control immigration from the Commonwealth coming to their shores, it would be necessary to adopt the inevitable cause, undesirable though the Government regard it, of imposing an immigration control at the docks to catch immigrants coming in.
He said in so many words that, if the Irish Government did not do it, he would have to bring this Bill into operation.
Is there an undertaking from the Irish Government? The other day the Home Secretary told us that he had read it in a newspaper. Then he said that he had been officially informed. He stated:
There are the normal consultations between Governments, but I made this statement without having attempted to persuade or in any way affect the Government of Southern Ireland, and the statement was made and then communicated to me in the ordinary manner. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Did the right hon. Gentleman discover it from a newspaper or from an official communication? How does he know that this has happened, because he said that this was a decision of the Irish Government? We want to know this because the right hon. Gentleman has given two contradictory explanations. The Committee has the right to know, having been proffered two alternative and incompatible explanations, which one is correct. Perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman had not given an explanation we


should not be entitled to answer, but he has given two which do not fit together.
The Home Secretary said that this had been decided by the Government of Southern Ireland. The Attorney-General kept on saying, "If they do this" or "if they do that" at their ports. The Home Secretary said that a clear decision had been come to. On 5th December he said:
No sort of persuasion or anything else has come into the matter. It has been decided by the Government of the Republic.
What is the position? Is this a hypothesis, as the Attorney-General said? Is it a known fact, as the Home Secretary said? How did it get to us? Perhaps the Attorney-General could tell us that. When he says that he may have to impose immigration checks at the ports if the Government of Southern Ireland do not do as he has told them to do, would that control then apply to people coming from Northern Ireland or would it not? I want to know this. It is important. If it does not apply to people coming from Northern Ireland, then these threats are meaningless. The Southern Irish can simply go to Northern Ireland and then come here.
I suggest that hon. Members who have particular interests in this aspect should follow up this matter. If the threat is to mean anything it must apply to people coming from Northern Ireland. If it does not so apply, then these are empty threats. Hon. Members with constituencies in that part of the United Kingdom have a great interest to probe and probe in order to find the answer in view of the various ambiguous statements which have been made.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: There is an alternative—applying a control on the border.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is possible, perhaps, but the Home Secretary has said that it is impossible. I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) should go through this with a tooth comb—because one needs to do that with what is said by the Home Secretary—and should put his statements together and try to relate them in the interests of his constituents.
The Attorney-General told us that this was a wonderfully flexible Bill and that

its powers can be exercised. He then went on, at great length, to show us why these powers could not be exercised. The Home Secretary went much further even in saying that the powers could not be exercised. He said that control of immigration by sea was virtually impossible, but he added that the Government had decided that the difficulties of patrolling the border were too great to make that possible. Thus, one method is virtually impossible and the other is absolutely impossible, and that includes the alternative proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. The Home Secretary went so far as to say:
…the Government cannot find a workable or desirable method of controlling the entry of Irish immigrants into this country.
That seems to me to destroy all the hypotheses the Attorney-General was talking about. We want to know which of these statements made by Government spokesmen holds good.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
…the Government cannot find a workable or desirable method of controlling the entry of Irish immigrants into this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1184–90.]
That is a clear and unambiguous statement. It is hard to find a clear and absolutely unambiguous statement in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but this is one.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what sort of controls he is trying to coerce the Government of Ireland into imposing? Is it a colour-bar control or not? Let me put to him a question which will elucidate this point and which I hope he will answer. Let us imagine that Canadians begin to come in through Southern Ireland in increasing numbers. They may well do so, because if they go straight to the United Kingdom, they will find, for the first time in history, that they are subject to examination and all sorts of questions and many troubles which they have never known, and they will find that what they have always regarded as their birthright is being taken away if they come direct to a United Kingdom port. If they go to a Southern Ireland port and then come here—and that is very easy for them—can the right hon. Gentleman lay his


hand on his heart and say that he will regard that as Commonwealth immigration in the sense of something that has to be stopped? Can he answer that?
Now let us imagine that Jamaicans come in that way as well. Would that be the sort of Commonwealth immigration which the Irish must stop if they are not to have this threat held over their heads? If both come to Ireland, Canadians and Jamaicans, which is what will happen, will one lot get in here and the other not? The right hon. Gentleman must answer that for it is at the root of the problem. If he is threatening the Irish Government and saying that it must do something if worse is not to befall it, we have a right to know what he is expecting and trying to coerce the Government of Southern Ireland to do.
I cannot believe that the Government of Southern Ireland would pass legislation of the type and character of this Bill, which has evoked abhorrence in religious and liberal and many other circles and which has been more and more sharply attacked by almost every reputable newspaper and organ of opinion in the country. I cannot believe that even under threats the Government of the Republic of Ireland could bring itself to pass legislation of this kind which had been so bitterly attacked. I cannot believe that the Government of the Republic of Ireland would put itself in the same gallery as right hon. Gentlemen opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor Northern Ireland."] Northern Ireland raises slightly different problems.
The fact that we cannot get away from and which sticks in all our throats is that if the Irish are to be exempt de facto, and both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman have told us that there is no effective way of working the Bill in respect of the Irish, the inherent colour character of the Bill is made naked and obvious. Even apart from that it is a colour Bill, but this makes it absolutely clearly and irrefutably so.

Mr. Antony Buck: Is not that entirely incompatible with what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier about the difficulties which the Canadians would encounter at the ports and which the Australians would similarly encounter? From what he

said, the Canadians will try to get through Ireland to avoid these difficulties. How can it be a colour Bill on that basis?

6.0. p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Canadians will encounter difficulties which they have never known before. They will have to submit to examination and produce all sorts of extra documents. In that sense their rights are to be taken from them. Nearly all of them will get in, but only after subjecting themselves to examinations which are wholly new and repellent to them. Those who will be kept out—and everybody knows this—will be overwhelmingly the coloured people. I was saying not so much that the Canadians would be kept out, but that the Bill would subject them to all sorts of new impositions which do not now exist.

Mr. Buck: Is that not mere speculation about how the Bill will work?

Mr. Gordon Walker: If the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) cares to explain later why he thinks that will not happen and why the general quota will not be applied to most people, particularly to coloured people, we will be very interested. The fact remains that almost every commentator on the Bill has said that that is how it will work

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman was saying that the Canadians would go to Ireland in preference to coming to this country direct. Ireland already imposes exactly the sort of restrictions he has mentioned and which would be imposed under the Bill in this country. He was assuming that the individual would come in in a different capacity from that which he now mentions.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Irish Government impose controls on the immigration of aliens, but not on the immigration of Commonwealth citizens. I do not know how the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) can be so ignorant of something so important.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that a Canadian can


go to Southern Ireland without producing his passport?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Oh! Producing his passport! If the Government of the Irish Republic submit themselves to the blackmail of our Government, he will have to do much more than produce his passport. Even the hon. Gentleman would have to produce his passport if he came from Canada to Ireland, even to England. Canadians will have to undergo an examination and so on and may be refused admission. All sorts of conditions could be imposed on them. They could be told that they could stay for only three weeks, or six months. All sorts of new things can be done to them, and, if the Irish Government succumb to this Government, the same thing will happen in Cork. I do not believe that the Irish Government will be so feeble and so illiberal as to give way to this pressure, so I do not think that it will happen. I believe that the Canadians will be able freely to get into Ireland and then, I hope, freely come here, as will the Jamaicans.
The general idea of the Attorney-General was that this was a power which he was holding in reserve—that is what it boils down to. He and the right hon. Gentleman have explained that what they would do is not to enforce these provisions against the Irish but to have them in the Bill as a sort of otiose measure which could be enforced, and that in the meanwhile they would start counting the Irish and looking at their insurance cards and landing cards and so on and checking records in the Ministry of Labour.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) was saying that he thought that the way the Government would work the Bill was not by making the teeth of the Bill bite, but just by having them available. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that that would be so in the case of the Irish, but not in the case of Commonwealth citizens. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman apply the same doctrine throughout the Bill, to all Commonwealth citizens as well as to Irish citizens, holding the powers in reserve? We have been told that these are reserve measures and that they are needed because it is better to be able to do something sooner rather than

later, but the Government do not want to use them. The right hon. Gentleman said the other night that these were reserve measures. If they are and they are to be used as reserve measures for the Southern Irish, why should we not apply them all the way round? If they are to be reserve measures, why not admit it? Why not say that we will do the same for all Commonwealth citizens as we do for the Irish, counting them and looking at their insurance cards and examining the facts? Heaven knows, the Government do not know the facts; they do not know the figures; they do not know how many men, or how many women are coming in and going out of the country, nor how long they stay.
I make this as a serious suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. I suggest that the Home Secretary broadens the principle mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon, the principle that this Measure will be held in reserve in respect of the Irish while other measures of counting and finding out about them are applied. The Attorney-General told us the other night that the major provisions of the Bill in respect of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and Commonwealth citizens would also be held in reserve. It was a large part of his argument that they would be held in reserve, his case being that it was better to act quickly than late and so on. Why not accept that in this case and say that the whole Bill will be held in reserve?
We should not like that, for we do not want the Bill to be passed at all, but we would sooner that it was held in reserve than that the teeth began to bite. We have already been beaten on some Amendments and we have to consider the Bill as it now is. My proposal would satisfy hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, if not completely, and would be regarded as a great deal better than forcing the Bill through. This is what the hon. Member for Ashford was beginning to say when he said that the whole Measure would be held in reserve and that we would treat Commonwealth citizens as we intend to treat the Irish.
That would enable the Government to avoid discrimination between the Southern Irish and others de facto and


would get rid of the feeling that the Bill will be a colour-bar Bill. The Government would not be able to give the Bill teeth without returning to the House of Commons, because its operation would depend upon Orders. We have already been assured that instructions to immigration officers would be presented to us and would be debatable. There would be no way in which the reserve powers could be brought into operation without consulting the House of Commons—it could not be done by a sudden administrative act. I should like the Bill to be withdrawn, but we would much sooner accept the proposition I have made than have these discriminations.

Mr. Donald Wade: I have much sympathy with the observations of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). Would he not agree that if powers were held in reserve, the Government would have an opportunity to discuss the whole subject with other Commonwealth countries, not acting until agreement with them had been reached?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree. That would be an added advantage, and there are no doubt others. The prime thing is that it would not set into operation now a colour-bar Bill and the Bill could not begin operating without the Government asking the House of Commons, which would be a safeguard.

Mr. R. Carr: I tried unsuccessfully to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, not to dispute with him but to ask for an explanation of words which could have an interpretation which he would not mean them to have—at least, I hope not. He was explaining to the Committee the difficulties of preventing immigration from Ireland, saying that the only effective way would be port control, which would be objectionable to our friends in Ulster.
He then developed the argument that, if the Government of Eire were to introduce a similar Bill, it would not be necessary to introduce port control to stop Commonwealth immigration into this country. There seemed to be the implication in what he said that, if the Government of the Republic of Ireland were not to introduce such legislation so that Commonwealth immigration were pos

sible into this country via Eire, he would be prepared to take the drastic step of imposing port control. In other words, the implication which I read into his remarks was that he was prepared to take a drastic step to stop Commonwealth immigration into this country but was not prepared to take that step to stop or control Irish immigration into this country.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry, but I did not see my hon. Friend rise during the course of my speech. I saw many other hon. Members, but not him. I am only too glad to answer this point. I was dealing with the point, first, with 'regard to Commonwealth immigration and then coming on to consider the position as regards immigration from the Irish Republic. The point I sought to make was that we were surely right to take powers in the Bill to enable us, should circumstances warrant it, to erect a fence along the west side of our country. I did not limit the exercise of those powers only to Commonwealth immigrants. I said that the powers are there. I also pointed out the practical difficulties in relation to their exercise against the Southern Irish. I did not draw the distinction my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Carr: I am a little encouraged by those remarks. Perhaps I am rather slow-moving in my understanding this afternoon, but I am not yet sure if my right hon. and learned Friend has given the assurance which I believe many hon. Members on both sides want. My point was that I read into his remarks the implication that he would impose this control—and I agree that, if he imposed it, it would affect Southern Irish as well as Commonwealth citizens—if it were necessary to stop Commonwealth immigration via Eire, but not otherwise. If this is not so, I should very much welcome a denial, because it would make it at least a little easier for myself and, I suspect, some of my hon. Friends.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is not right in saying "but not otherwise". I pointed out the practical difficulties in relation to exercising control over Irish immigration. I also pointed out that it was right to take power in the Bill to erect a fence if circumstances arose which warranted facing up to the great difficulties which I indicated and which have been


frequently indicated. We are dealing with the Bill. I made the point—I am sorry if I did not make it clear—that we have taken a power to build that fence if the circumstances require it.

Mr. Carr: It is difficult to clarify these matters by means of intervention. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State intervene later in the debate, I hope that they can give the Committee a categorical statement as to what will happen if the Government of the Republic do not—I emphasise "do not"—introduce somewhat similar legislation to the Bill. If we can understand quite clearly what the Government have in mind in this respect, it will help us considerably in considering the basic merits of the Bill.

Mr. John Hall: Would not my hon. Friend also wish to know what the Government will do if the Government of the Republic of Ireland do introduce legislation controlling Commonwealth immigration?

Mr. Carr: Indeed, but at the moment I am particularly concerned to know what the Government will do if the Government of the Republic do not introduce such legislation.
I am one of those who set great value on the contribution which immigration of all races and colours has made to our economy. I have had considerable experience of this. The industrial company in which I work employs immigrant labour, and has done so for many years. It employed Irish immigrants during and after the war, refugee immigrants of European stock after the war, and has latterly employed mainly immigrants from the West Indies. In all these cases we have obtained workers who are of great value, both as workers and as citizens. In at least two of the company's factories at the moment nearly 30 per cent. of the workers are coloured. They have been absorbed without any trouble. They are making at least an equal contribution to anybody else on the staff in the rôles they occupy.
6.15 p.m.
I want to see a lot more immigration of all kinds. The country needs it and we gain from it. Nevertheless, I believe, though reluctantly—I had hoped for

many years not to have to believe this—that it is necessary for the Government to take power to control the total number of people who can come to this island to live year by year.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not go wider than the Amendment, which deals with Ireland.

Mr. Carr: I apologise, Sir William, and I promise that I will come at once to the Irish. My argument is that this control should go right across the board. It must include the Irish as much as anybody else. If it does not include the Irish, one or two important things will happen. The most important thing is that of the number of people whom we can absorb in a given year an unfair proportion is likely to be of non-Commonwealth subjects. An undue proportion will go to Irish immigrants.
I hope I have already made it clear that I have no objection to Irish immigrants. We have gained from their coming to this country. I think that we shall continue to gain from their coming to this country but, without any prejudice against the Irish, I object to them having an unfair proportion of the total which we feel we can absorb year by year. To allow that to happen would be a dereliction of our duty to the Commonwealth.
In considering the Commonwealth we have to think not only of those Commonwealth citizens who might be personally affected by the Bill, but also of the emotions which exist in the Commonwealth amongst those Commonwealth citizens who have at the moment no intention of coming to this country either to live permanently or to make a visit. I have recently returned from a visit to Australia and Canada. I became aware that there is a growing fear in those countries that we in this country no longer care sufficiently about the Commonwealth.
I must say at once—here I differ from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends—that I am not thinking of the Common Market, because I found in Australia and in Canada a very wide understanding of the importance of the Common Market to this country and there was a feeling that, although it might be unpleasant for them in the short run, if


we decide that it will make us stronger in the long run they will accept it.
I found, however—this is why the inclusion of the Irish in the Bill becomes so important—that they wanted assurances that, whenever a parting of the ways came and whenever we had to make one decision or another, our Commonwealth links would enter into our considerations and we would, wherever possible, make the decision favourable to the Commonwealth. This question was raised with me by many people in Australia who said to me that if we found it necessary to control immigration they hoped as Australians—not as coloured people in the West Indies, but as Australians—that it would be introduced right across the board and would include the Irish as well as everybody else.

Mr. A. R. Wise: Is it not the case that the Australians and others to whom my hon. Friend refers give a great deal of preference to the Irish, and that Irishmen can settle in Australia?

Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend misconceives the whole emotional basis of Commonwealth relationships. We are the Mother Country. We do not claim to be just another Commonwealth country; we claim to be the head of the Commonwealth. That puts us in an entirely different position, and if we wish to maintain that position we must do things which, perhaps, other members of the Commonwealth do not have to do, whether or not it may seem fair and logical. This is a matter of emotion.
We are told that the Government wish to include the Irish in the Bill but cannot do so in practice, short of employing such measures as would be gravely objectionable, other than in a period of serious crisis. We are told that it is impossible to police the border. That might well be the most difficult of all the operations to be carried out, although I cannot be certain about it. We are told that the only reasonably easy and effective way of controlling Irish immigration would be to put on controls at the ports, and we are told that that is not to be done because of the feelings of our friends, colleagues and fellow citizens in Northern Ireland. I respect those feelings, and I would not wish to trample on them in any way. There

fore, I want to look more closely than I am yet convinced the Government have looked at the possible alternatives.
My right hon. and learned Friend talked about some of the alternatives. I am sorry to say that I could not help getting a feeling, from the manner in which he addressed himself to them, that they had been looked at more with a view to finding difficulties than to overcoming them. I cannot believe that it is impossible to make the National Insurance application form the basis of control. It might be a clumsy way of proceeding, and it might be administratively expensive. It might mean big changes in the procedure of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of National Insurance. It might also be objectionable, in that it would involve the creation of new crimes in this country for which deportation would be the penalty.
I agree that that would be objectionable—but controlling Commonwealth immigration is objectionable. I am one of those who have become convinced that though objectionable it is necessary; but if it is necessary to swallow one objectionable thing we must find the courage and the will to swallow the other objectionable thing as well. Unless the Government are prepared to do that I cannot support the Bill.

Mr. Ede: We all know that the Home Secretary is a great Parliamentary tactician, but he surpassed himself this afternoon when he sent the right hon. and learned Attorney-General in to lead a forlorn hope on the Amendment. I cannot understand what has lured him, first, into introducing the Bill and, secondly, into sticking to it. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that he would check the immigrants on the United Kingdom border, in north-west Ireland. The trouble is that that border has never been agreed.

Captain Orr: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of history, it has been the subject of a tripartite agreement among all three Governments.

Mr. Ede: If the hon. and gallant Member looks into the matter he will find that a boundary is a line which has length, but not breadth. Where is the line in the River Foyle?

Captain Orr: In the middle.

Mr. Ede: That is just where it is not. The whole width of the Foyle is involved. Does not the hon. and gallant Member know that in the matter of poaching there is a concurrent jurisdiction in both Governments. Poaching is a matter that the Irish understand very well. It was found that neither side could get a conviction for poaching, because, when a poacher was caught, no matter who happened to catch him, he would say, "I was not in your territory."

Captain Orr: rose—

Mr. Ede: I will allow the hon. and gallant Member to intervene again in a moment. I never object to interruptions; they are as good as notes.
We have, therefore, reached an agreement, which is enshrined in the statutes, that no matter which water bailiffs catch a poacher, and no matter on which side of the river he may be caught, he can be tried in the courts of either country, and either country can impose a penalty irrespective of the citizenship claimed by the poacher.

Captain Orr: I remember the Statute very well. I opposed it in the House on behalf of the poachers. I do not see what it has to do with this problem.

Mr. Ede: I make the assertion that when the whole of the population of Southern Ireland who owed allegiance to the Government of that country became aliens overnight I was confronted with the kind of problem now facing the Home Secretary. The first thing I discovered was that there had never been an agreement about the border. The final meeting of the Commission set up to deal with the question broke up in confusion and presented no report. That is a typically Irish situation, at which one always arrives in dealing with this matter.
One after the other I considered the very alternatives which are now put forward by the right hon. and learned Member, and I said that I would not be so foolish as to attempt to explain those matters in the House of Commons. The reception which the right hon. and learned Member received this afternoon proved that if I was not very plucky at least I was reasonably wise in reaching that decision.
We are now told that the object of the Bill is to secure control. "Control" is now the motto. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), who have not favoured us with much of their company today, make speeches which show clearly that it is not control that they are after. Let us be clear about that. In spite of the denials they sometimes make it is very difficult to find out whom they want to exclude other than coloured people.
Control is very difficult. We want immigrants who can contribute to our economic strength. We want skilled craftsmen, men who can work in industries and increase our capacity for export. Our wisdom in doing that is proved by the reluctance of countries behind the Iron Curtain to release such people.
6.30 p.m.
In the days immediately after the war we were flooded with applications from members of the liberal professions in European countries who had friends here and wanted to come here to live—lawyers, doctors, professors and all that kind of person. We had very little difficulty in getting them to come when we decided to admit them. That creates a very great problem for people who have to control this matter, when all the arguments now come down to economic circumstances which will prevail.
The people we boast about 'laving admitted in the past, the Huguenots, came here as skilled craftsmen. I know one great Huguenot family who came over and were so determined to be persecuted that when they were turned out of France at the revocation of the Edict of Nantes they came to this country and declared themselves as Unitarians and so lost the benefits of the Act of Tolerance; but we took no step against them, because they at once made a great contribution to the economic resources of this country.
Were any consultations held with the civil engineering firms which are concerned with the preliminary work of getting land ready for the erection of houses on housing estates? I am told that a very high proportion of the men engaged in that operation are citizens of Southern Ireland. During the course


of this afternoon I was told by a colleague here that he believed that in some cases people of that group are as high as 80 per cent. of the men employed on such estate development. If there is one thing we want it is that kind of labour.
A great many of the workers in this country and in the Dominions, the old parts of the Commonwealth, were carried out by Irish navvies before much of the work they used to do was taken over by modern mechanical devices. That reservoir of this kind of labour in Southern Ireland was a great asset to us in the last century. If we take steps to deprive ourselves of it in any way in this century we shall be very foolish indeed.

Mr. Ellis Smith: They made the Manchester Ship Canal.

Mr. Ede: Not merely the Manchester Ship Canal, but nearly all the canals in the country were built by imported Irishmen.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The Irish were so unruly that they had a special police force to deal with them.

Mr. Ede: Every advantage entails some disadvantage. The fact the Irishman is a good workman, and works very hard, entitles him to a little relaxation at the end of the day. It is a great pity that we do not realise that when complaints are sometimes made about coloured workmen in this country.
The Home Secretary is to undertake this task of control. Rightly, we apply it in the case of aliens. He may have to attempt to apply it in the case of the Irish. I think that he will find in the end that he will get back to what always operates in the end in the matter of control of aliens, that the persons we want to admit are the people who will add to the economic resources of the country. To deprive ourselves and make it more awkward for people to come from Southern Ireland will not help one trade I have mentioned and I understand that there are others. At the moment, my sister is in hospital and the name of every nurse there is Irish—every one.
This is a Bill which is a sop to three or four hon. Members opposite who lead the Home Secretary captive in their

triumph, a triumph which will do no good to this country and which will certainly not enhance our standing among the nations of the world. I think that the problem of the Irish is completely insoluble. We have had every possible method put up this afternoon by the Attorney-General. They were received on this side of the Committee in one way, but to watch the faces of hon. Members opposite was even more interesting than to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I hope that this Amendment will be carried. I do not want to put on the Home Secretary the awful problem of trying to control Irish immigration. He may be able to reach an agreement with the Government of Southern Ireland. They are very accommodating when they have something which they want. The price he will have to pay for the Bill he wants I do not know, but I am quite sure that when the final bargain is struck the balance of advantage will not ultimately be on his side.

Mr. Tapsell: I wish to say how very much I agree with everything which was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). Like him, with great regret, I have come to the conclusion that the Government are bound to take powers to control the rate at which immigrants come into this country from the Commonwealth; but, like him also, I am extremely disturbed that it is not thought possible to include Southern Ireland in these provisions.
By a curious coincidence, the question which my hon. Friend sought unsuccessfully to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was precisely the same question I sought to ask. The Attorney-General said that it would not be necessary for the Government to take powers to restrict immigration from Southern Ireland if the Republic itself took powers against the entry of Commonwealth citizens. In saying that, the Attorney-General was repeating something which the Home Secretary said on 5th December. He said:
The main reason why we want to have this power in reserve is that, if the Government of the Republic do not control immigration from the Commonwealth coming to their shores, it would be necessary to adopt the inevitable course, undesirable though the


Government regard it, of imposing an immigration control at the docks to catch immigrants coming in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1184–5.]
I felt that it was strange for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to say that when, in the same speech, he said that it was impossible to restrict immigration from Southern Ireland. As reported in column 1190, which has already been quoted by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), my right hon. Friend said:
I have just explained to the Committee that the Government cannot find a workable or desirable method of controlling the entry of Irish immigrants into this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1190.]
Even if it were found possible, as I hope, to devise a means of extending the provisions of the Bill to Southern Ireland, the reason given seems to me to be the worst possible reason for introducing such a restriction. Why are we prepared to prevent aliens from coming here or non-Commonwealth citizens from coming here from Southern Ireland only if the Republic is not prepared to stop British subjects from entering their country? Surely for the Mother Country of the Commonwealth that is putting the cart before the horse.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham said about the feeling throughout the Commonwealth that we are not giving sufficient attention to Commonwealth interests. I am a supporter of this country joining the Common Market if we can do so on acceptable terms, but I feel that the Commonwealth has good reason at present for anxiety about the apparent lack of weight which is sometimes given by the Government to Commonwealth interests.
I understand the reference by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to the baleful influence which Irish affairs often seem to have had on discussions in this House. There was a moment when my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was speaking when it seemed to me that we stepped right through the looking glass. He opened his speech—I think that these are his exact words—by saying, "If we are to take powers it would be

quite wrong not to take powers to control immigration from Southern Ireland."
I absolutely agree with that, and would say that if that is the case I do not know what we are arguing about. But, having made that statement and put these powers into the Bill, the Government are making it clear that they do not think it possible to apply them. I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham that the same approach should be made throughout the Commonwealth and Ireland on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) made an extremely interesting and helpful speech—helpful in the sense that it seemed to me to provide a possible point on which a large section on both sides of the House could come together in agreement on this issue which, although it has become one of acute political controversy, is a national issue on which it is the concern of all of us to find a solution. My hon. Friend talked about the measures being regarded as "reserve powers". He said that if the Home Secretary, in his reply, indicated that the Bill would be regarded in this light, then this would be helpful to those of us who are concerned about it. The right hon. Member for Smethwick said something similar.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was right in thinking that this is the way in which the Government are approaching the Measure, although I am bound to say that with immigration running at the 1961 level I find it difficult to believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford is right in suggesting that the practical effect of the Bill may not be very considerable. I must honestly tell the Committee that I do not think that we ought to allow immigration from the Commonwealth in 1962 and 1963, from whatever source, at the same rate as in 1961.
It seems to me that two main criticisms have been made about the exclusion of the Irish from the effective working of the Bill. The first is the Commonwealth argument and the second is the racial argument. Of course, they are very closely linked with one another. My right hon. and learned Friend said that there would have to be very compelling


reasons for taking action to restrict immigration from Southern Ireland. I suggest that being true to the Commonwealth ideal, which all of us, including above all, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, hold dear is the most compelling reason which could possibly be found.
Secondly, although a number of my hon. Friends may reject this, I believe that if Southern Ireland is not included then, whatever the Government's intentions may be, this will appear to be a Bill based on colour. I know that that is not the Government's intention. Nobody who has read the Prime Minister's speech to the South African Parliament, or who has followed the policies which the Government have so courageously pursued throughout Africa, could possibly accuse the Government of not wishing to solve those problems in the most liberal and enlightened way, but I fear that while we may appreciate the administrative difficulties which make restriction of Southern Ireland immigration difficult, and may well understand the anomalous position which Southern Ireland holds in our affairs, it is a distinction which one can hardly expect other Commonwealth countries to understand.
6.45 p.m.
I am not convinced that the administrative problems of controlling the Southern Irish in the same way as the Commonwealth are insuperable. It has been said that it would be impossible to police the border, but it is the shortest land border in Europe. I cannot claim any real knowledge of the problems of Ulster for, unfortunately, I have never been there, but it seems a little strange that when a great issue of principle is involved we think it impossible to contemplate dealing with that border while every other country in Europe finds it, unfortunately, all too easy to control and police vastly longer borders. Surely the people of Ulster would give loyal support to any suggestion that the border should be properly controlled.
I wonder whether the British living in Northern Ireland would find it so totally unacceptable to have a badge of loyalty indicating that they are British. It would enable them to go into other parts of the United Kingdom and would distinguish them from non-British Irishmen south of the border. It seems to me that it would

be a loyal insignia which they would be proud to carry.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There are several hon. Members on this side of the Committee who feel strongly about the Irish, but we do not go as far as my hon. Friend is going. We think that this is not just an administrative problem. The problem is one of carrying passports. Shall we also give passports to the Scottish people, for example? We are dealing with Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. If we give them passports they cease to be members of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tapsell: I absolutely agree that this is not merely an administrative problem. It raises the widest issues, as I have sought to show. As it has been said that there are insuperable administrative problems involved in carrying out any sort of immigration control, I was venturing to mention one or two possible administrative solutions.
What I was suggesting was not a passport, but merely a sort of badge, rather like a season ticket, which one flashes at the ticket collector as on goes through the gate. It would be perfectly clear in flashing it that one had one's "ticket" and that one was a British subject. After all, none of us feels the slightest worry when we go on the Continent of Europe with G.B. plates on our cars, and none of the very loyal British subjects in Ulster should object to having a card which they could show as they pass into a different part of the United Kingdom and which would have the effect of sharply distinguishing them from the Republican Irish.

Mr. Chapman: If we are talking about the Southern Irish who wish to evade the provisions of the Bill, what would stop them getting hold of these things and using them? The hon. Member must think of something more foolproof than that to carry out what he has suggested.

Mr. Tapsell: I quite agree that this is not foolproof, but I do not think that any system that could be devised would be absolutely foolproof. We all accept that, but I suggest that because we cannot have 100 per cent. certainty that is no reason for abandoning the attempt altogether.
Personally, my objection to the Bill would be removed if I felt that the Government were making a determined attempt, to the best of their ability, to apply to the Southern Irish the same provisions that they are to apply to the rest of the Commonwealth.
The third administrative point that I should like to mention, without going into details, is that, having listened very carefully on both occasions to the explanation of the reasons why neither labour permits nor National Insurance cards would be effective ways of controlling this immigration, I am not altogether convinced. I hope my right hon. Friend will have another look at it to see whether the National Insurance cards, in particular, cannot be used as vehicles to help us to solve this problem.
May I, in conclusion, say a word about public opinion? We in this House are sent here as representatives, and, to that extent, if we are honest and courageous in discharging our duties, we should not be unduly influenced one way or the other by public opinion. We should deal with a great Commonwealth issue such as this in the way we feel to be right. I come from a Nottingham constituency, and we have about 8,000 coloured Commonwealth immigrants in Nottingham, which is a city which has had some problems. As I think the Leader of the Opposition, in quoting from the Economist when he opened the Committee stage, made clear, both the Nottingham Health Department and our Chief Constable have given what amounts to an extremely good report on the health and behaviour of Commonwealth immigrants.
I certainly confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham said about the valuable contribution which they are making in industry in Nottingham. Fairly recently, I went through one of the largest factories in my constituency, which is employing about 7,000 people, and I was struck by the considerable number of coloured immigrants working there. I inquired whether there was any trouble about this and I was told that in the last three years they had had only one example of any trouble at all, and that when this matter was put to the other coloured girls who worked there they agreed that the girl in question should go, because

the trouble arose from the fact that she did not work in with the rest of the team, and that it had nothing to do with colour at all.
On the question of public opinion in Nottingham, one might expect public opinion to be very aroused about it, but I have not found that in my own experience. I have had a considerable correspondence since the discussions on the Bill started, and in all that time I have had only two letters supporting the Bill and a considerable number opposing it in various degrees. Having discussed this matter with the executive of my Conservative association, I found that they were unanimous in thinking that it would be wrong for the Government to proceeed with a Bill of this nature unless it included Southern Ireland in its provisions.
The final thing I should like to say is about the original public opinion poll indicating that more people were in favour of restricting Commonwealth immigration than had ever expressed a view on any subject before. It was a very striking statistic, but perhaps hon. Members have read the most recent Gallup poll published in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday, which shows that a most extraordinary change of opinion seems to have occurred in Labour seats held with considerable majorities. For one thing, 40 per cent. of the people had never heard of the Bill at all. One wonders just how accurate these Gallup polls are.
Whatever the superficial and immediate reactions which people may have to perhaps slightly slanted questions, do not think that we should underestimate two things in British public life: first, the decency and essential morality of British public opinion. Although people may not like a Jamaican party next door, causing a great deal of noise—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): I think that it is time the hon. Gentleman related this to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Tapsell: I am sorry, Sir Samuel, and I come straight back to the Irish.
Public opinion, I say, is very decent and is founded on moral principles, and whatever people may superficially say,


when we press them or when they are brought up against it, they are very much ashamed of anything that smacks of colour prejudice. That is why many people, both in and out of this House, who seem to be influenced to some extent by colour prejudice, almost seem to preface their remarks by saying, "Some of my best friends are Jamaicans". They talk about "tropical culture" when what they mean are coloured people. If even the most ardent advocates of the restriction of coloured immigrants feel this sense of shame, how much more do the great mass of the people in the country feel it?
The other basic belief which is so strongly entrenched in Britain is a sense of pride in the Commonwealth, and a sense that this is our greatest achievement. A future Gibbon, writing about us in two hundred years' time, will probably conclude that of all the contributions which this country has made to civilisation, the greatest, without question, has been our Commonwealth. If we now pass legislation which gives the Irish preferential treatment compared with Commonwealth citizens, we are being unworthy of our heritage.

Mr. John Dugdale: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell) may not always have been strictly in order, but we agree that he made an excellent speech. I agree particularly with his phrase that this Bill was based on colour. I think we all agree with that.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Tapsell: I meant to say that if the Southern Irish were not included in this provision it would appear to be based on colour.

Mr. Dugdale: I think that we all agree that the Bill will appear to be based on colour.
The Attorney-General made a remark with which I think we all agree. He made many with which we do not agree, but he said that this was not a Bill to stop immigration. That is exactly what it is not. It will double the immigration from one set of people while reducing it from another. Many people in Jamaica, India, and other parts of the Commonwealth will be stopped from coming to this country, and many of them will be replaced by people from Ireland. We

need immigrants. As one hon. Gentleman said, we need them to work in our hospitals. My wife is in hospital at the moment, and of the nurses and doctors who attend her, only one comes from the United Kingdom. The others come from different parts of the Commonwealth. We will have to replace these immigrants from somewhere, and many of them will be replaced from Ireland.
The Attorney-General said that there would be many technical difficulties. Of course, there will be, but it is the job of the Government to solve technical difficulties. That is what they are there for. If they cannot solve these difficulties, they had better make way for a Government who can.
I know of a Minister who once had technical difficulties placed before him by one of his officials. He said, "I want this done in three years", and was told, "It can be done only in six years." The Minister retorted, "Sack the official who says so and get somebody who can do it in three years, because that is what I want." That is how he got round solving technical difficulties, and I am sure that they can be solved in this case.
I speak as a child among lawyers in these matters, but what seems difficult to understand is this. At the moment surely we have some kind of check on aliens coming from Northern Ireland? Surely we have some kind of check on security cases? Do we allow everybody to come in without regard to security? I cannot believe that we do that. It there can be security checks, why cannot there be other checks? I find this exceedingly difficult to understand, but apparently we cannot have them.
We are told that control from Northern Ireland is distasteful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) asked, why is the control of Jamaicans coming to this country not distasteful? Why is it that only control via Northern Ireland is distasteful. Apparently controlling immigration from Northern Ireland is distasteful to the Government, and for that reason they intend to do something which is distasteful to many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—they propose to introduce discrimination.
We intensely dislike this discrimination. I think that it was my right hon.


Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) who produced certain figures from the Economist Intelligence Unit which are extremely pertinent to this question. Between 1946 and 1959, 45,000 people came to this country from India and Pakistan; 113,000 from the West Indies; and 352,600 from Eire. During all that time there was no complaint about too many immigrants coming to this country. The reason was that they came from the Republic of Ireland and not from Jamaica or some place from which hon. Gentlemen think they should not come.
This is an unfortunate state of affairs. It argues grave prejudice in favour of white people and against coloured people. What happens when Irishmen come here? I am told that there are problems of overcrowding in this country. Do not Irishmen help to overcrowd houses?

Mr. Wise: No, they build the houses.

Mr. Dugdale: So do Jamaicans. I agree that Irish people help to build houses, but they contribute towards overcrowding. The Jamaicans contribute to overcrowding, but they, too, help to build houses. Do not Irishmen sometimes make a noise and create disturbances in the evening? They would not be Irish if they did not. Yet, one is led to believe that all the disturbance, noise, and commotion which annoy English households are caused exclusively by coloured people. Why should we suppose that Irishmen do not do these things? Do not the Irish also go on the dole and sometimes accept Public Assistance? Of course they do, in the same way as do Jamaicans, Indians and Pakistanis.
Why do they come here? They do so for various reasons. They come here to work, in the same way as Jamaicans, Indians and others come here to work. They also come here for other reasons. I have here the figures from a report of the Medical Officer of Health for the London County Council. The Report says that in 1960 there were 1,426 unmarried mothers from abroad in hospitals in London. Of that figure, 385 were from the West Indies, 94 from miscellaneous countries, including India and Pakistan, and 813 from Eire. If we are to believe what we hear about the

Jamaicans and Indians, they come here simply to avail themselves of the National Health Service and nothing else. All that I am saying is that what is wrong or right for an Indian or Jamaican should be wrong or right for an Irishman. The same test should be applied to both.
We have heard, too, about health tests. Let us consider the Irish in relation to health. The figures for tuberculosis in Ireland are twice as high as those in the United Kingdom, but in spite of that the Irish are to be allowed to come in. There is less tuberculosis among the Irish than among the Asians, but considerably more than among the West Indians. In spite of that, they are to be allowed in because they are Irish. Because they are Irish, they may come in and bring diseases or anything else. We do not think that this is good enough.

Mr. Delargy: My right hon. Friend ought to speak for himself.

Mr. Dugdale: I cannot speak for my hon. Friend.

Mr. Delargy: Anti-Irish.

Mr. Dugdale: I am not anti-Irish. I am saying that the Irish should be in the same position as people from other countries; nothing more, and nothing less. I think that my hon. Friend, with his Irish fairness, will agree that it is fair that they should all be treated in the same way. I am not speaking against the Irish. I am speaking in favour of having equal treatment for all races. The Government have said that they cannot do this. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite think that they can. I ask the Government to think again, and to follow the example set by some of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite and see that we get fair treatment for Irishmen Jamaicans, and other Commonwealth immigrants.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I was interested in, and agreed with a great deal of, the speech of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). I have also been interested in, and agreed with, many of the speeches made from this side of the Committee during the course of the afternoon which, it is significant, on this Irish question, have been highly critical of the


Government. Indeed, we have achieved what I thought we never would in a debate on this Bill, a remarkable degree of unanimity in the Committee during the course of the afternoon.
I noticed a leader in the Daily Telegraph about a week ago on the Irish problem. It said:
If Ireland was a self-contained Island a thousand miles away, immigration from Ireland would be controlled.
That we can accept as a statement of fact. That would put the Irish in no better position than the Canadians. And, indeed, why should they be? The leader went on to say:
If there was a coloured country in Ireland's geographical position, immigration would be free.
I wonder very much whether that is an accurate statement of what the position would be. I suspect that the sort of arguments designed to control Jamaicans coming here would still be advanced if Jamaica were as near to Britain as Ireland is. And the reason is that the British citizens of Jamaica are coloured and the non-British citizens of Southern Ireland are white.
There has always been large-scale immigration from Ireland but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich pointed out, there was really no agitation about immigration from anywhere until coloured British citizens began to come to this country in fairly large numbers about eight years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) really began this agitation so far as the House of Commons is concerned. He admitted to the House in the debate that took place in February that it was the influx of coloured immigrants which caused him to begin his campaign of agitation against the in-flow.
The Attorney-General explained this afternoon why, in practice, in the Government's view, it has not been found possible to include Southern Ireland in the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I spent a considerable time pointing out that it is included in the Bill.

Mr. Fisher: It is in the Bill in name and it has always been in the Bill in

name, but it has been taken out of the Bill by the Government in practice.
There is, I believe, only one effective way of including Southern Ireland in the Bill other than by the control of the border which would be a very difficult thing to do. I am reluctantly coming to the view that probably the only way to apply the Bill to Eire is to bring back passports for Ulster. It is not a suggestion I like making and no doubt it will offend hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland seats. I see my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) already taking notes to deliver a devastating reply to that suggestion. But it was done during the war. It was accepted then by Ulster because it was vital to the security of Britain. Could it not be done again if it is now vital to good relations in the Commonwealth?
I well understand the feelings of the people of Ulster, and some hon. Members may recall that I married an Ulster girl who was once an hon. Member of this House. Our home is in Ulster, and I completely understand that Ulster considers itself, and is, an integral part of the United Kingdom, just like Surrey or Sussex.
I appreciate, therefore, that there is an objection in principle to the carrying of passports between England and Ulster; but in practice would it be such a terrible thing to have to do? I go to Northern Ireland probably as often as any hon. Member—at least in every recess—and it would be no inconvenience to me to carry a passport when going to and fro. It would not really be much of an inconvenience to go through the passport control, to suffer a little delay and even to queue up. I cannot help feeling that this would be a small price to pay in the interests of better feeling and understanding within the Commonwealth.
I believe that the people of Ulster would agree to this, if it were put to them in a persuasive way by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South and other hon. Members who represent Ulster constituencies. The people of Ulster are not in the least afraid of making sacrifices for Britain and the Commonwealth.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but


I would assure him that it is absolutely clear, certainly from the researches we have made in Northern Ireland, that there are substantial reasons—from a convenience point of view and, more important, for constitutional reasons—why the proposal he is putting forward is completely unacceptable.

Mr. Fisher: No doubt my hon. Friend will develop that in the contribution he may make later. I am not prepared to agree that reasons merely of inconvenience are necessarily overriding when we are talking about great matters affecting the Commonwealth, as we are now. If there are constitutional objections of importance we shall no doubt hear my hon. Friend elaborate upon them later.
7.15 p.m.
Ulster has a real feeling for the Commonwealth. Its people have gone out and have made great careers for themselves in the Commonwealth, and they would be the last people who would wish to be the unintentional cause of any weakening of Commonwealth ties I wonder if my right hon. and learned Friend has discussed this aspect with Lord Brookeborough? I am sure that he has discussed the Bill, but I wonder if he has put the problem to Lord Brookeborough, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, in this light? And if so, with what result? Because unless Ulster will accept this sort of sacrifice or unless some other way of including Southern Ireland in the Bill can be found, the Bill will continue to look like a colour Bill to the Commonwealth.
When replying to me on this point during his speech on an earlier Amendment and again today, my right hon. and learned Friend said that he could not accept my view that this is a colour Bill. I appreciate, of course, that the Government do not intend that it should be so, and I will not argue this point further. But it is, quite honestly, a colour Bill in application and impact, because the people it will affect most—almost exclusively, in fact—will be coloured Commonwealth citizens. Anyway, it is thought of as a colour Bill by the coloured nations and the coloured citizens of the Commonwealth. That is really the point, and so the damage to Commonwealth relations has been done, because no matter what we think—

whether we regard it as a colour Bill or not—they believe that it is and that, in the context of their feelings for this country, is the only important fact in discussing this question of colour.
Even now, if a solution to this admittedly difficult Irish issue could be found, it would go a long way towards reconciling me to the Bill—which is unimportant—and it would go a long way towards reconciling the coloured countries of the Commonwealth to the Bill, which is very important indeed. But if the Government are now admitting that, having tried, they are finally defeated by the Irish problem—and if because of that they are forced to put through a Bill which seems to the Commonwealth to be a colour Bill—then, regretfully and unhappily, I must adhere to the position I took on Second Reading and withhold my support from the Bill. That is not very important, but what is much more important and much sadder is that I believe that the feeling which many Commonwealth countries have for Britain will never be quite the same again.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I wish to revert to the question that I put earlier to the Attorney-General and which, in my submission, he did not answer adequately. Before I do so, however, I should like to say that I agreed with much, but not all, of the speech of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). Before I come to the constitutional point, I shall refer to some remarks made by earlier speakers.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell) who said that he thought that Commonwealth immigration should not be allowed to continue at too high a rate. The answer to that has been given. Figures show that Commonwealth immigration is largely regulated by the opportunities for work which are presented in this country. The object of the Amendment is to diminish the drastic nature of the steps that the Bill is designed to take to stop Commonwealth immigration, to ban Commonwealth immigration, or, as the Attorney-General said, merely to control Commonweath immigration.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) performed a very useful service to the Committee when he pointed out that the Irish have


made great, diverse and valuable contributions to Great Britain and to the British Commonwealth of Nations in civil and military affairs, in literature, art, engineering and now in house building. We on this side think that this is a disgraceful Bill which seeks to ban immigration in a way which will imperil relations between the British Commonwealth of Nations, including Northern Ireland, and between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The Amendment would help to minimise this terrible possibility.
I wish to congratulate the Attorney-General on the humour that he contributed to the debate and on his thoroughly English collection of un-Irish bulls and other strange animals which excited so much laughter earlier in the debate. He provided a certain amount of light relief to a very serious subject which concerns the lives and liberties not only of the people of this island, but of those in other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal with the serious constitutional point that I put to him. It was that the effect of the Bill is to interfere, on the one hand, with the affairs of Northern Ireland, which was given a separate Parliament established by the Government of Ireland Act, and on the other with the constitutional affairs of the Republic of Ireland, which was established by a solemn international treaty. He called in aid, hypothetically, the steps which the Republic of Ireland may take to prevent citizens of the Republic from finding their devious ways across the border into Northern Ireland and thence to this island. He is envisaging an outrage on the constitutional relations, not only between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, but between Britain and those two parts of the neighbouring island.
The Attorney-General spoke about a fence between various parts of the Commonwealth. The Amendment is designed to prevent anything in the nature of a fence from being erected. It may he wise to take steps to regulate immigration to this island, but, in our submission, the steps that the Bill proposes to take are not the proper steps. The object of the Amendment is to take the poison out of what we regard as a very poisonous Bill—a Bill which will poison

relations not only between Northern and Southern Ireland and also between the two island, but between us and other parts of the Commonwealth.
One of my hon. Friends said that that this is a colour bar Bill. By excluding Irishmen from its operation, the Government make it obvious that the test to which immigrants will be subjected is a colour bar test. The Attorney-General sought to argue with great skill, but not persuasively—

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): If the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Hughes: I do not, of course, refuse to give way, but I should like to come to either a comma or a semicolon.
The Attorney-General sought to argue that this is a Bill, not to ban immigration, but merely to control it. He did not go so far as to say what "control" meant. He did not deal with the constitutional question that I put to him, which is my main objection to his speech. He took refuge, if it is possible so to do, in a fence. It seemed to me that he was sitting on part of the fence about which he was speaking He talked about a four-cornered fence—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—leaving one side down. It was not a plausible argument.
I suggest that none of the arguments adduced by hon. Members opposite goes any way towards negativing the arguments advanced by hon. Members on this side. I support the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: I regret to break what my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) called the sweet unanimity of the Committee on this subject. I am in favour of the principles which have been given as the reasons for the Bill and to explain why the Irish will not be caught by its provisions.
I must confess that I have not the contempt for British public opinion which appears to be held by many hon. Members. I do not believe that the British people have formed the view that a restriction on immigration is needed.


That is something which should not be entirely ignored. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said during the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Bill has been found to be a regretful necessity. No one wanted it. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members opposite did not think that the need for it had arisen. I assume that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) would not be a member of a Labour Government, if one is drawn from the benches opposite, which did not repeal the provisions of this Measure. I appreciate where the right hon. Gentleman stands and where the Leader of the Opposition stands.
I approach the Amendment with a prejudice equivalent to that which hon. Members on both sides have revealed. The prejudice has stood out like the warts on the pelt of Oliver Cromwell. I speak from a prejudice which was created because, as an Englishman, I served with Irish soldiers during the last war. My prejudice, therefore, is for Irish soldiers and Irish men and women, and I put them in the forefront of those who may be members of the Commonwealth. About 200,000 Irishmen served in the Armed Forces of the Crown during the last war.

Sir Douglas Glover: Rubbish.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Rawlinson: My hon. Friend says, "Rubbish". I do not know whether he has counted the heads. I do not know what part he played in the last war, whether it was with Irish soldiers or not. In any case, a very large number of Irishmen fought in the last war. They were not usually found sitting in administrative offices, or serving with shore bases. They were not usually wingless wonders. They were in the forefront of the forces of the Crown during the last war.

Sir D. Glover: I agree with every word that my hon. and learned Friend says, but it applies to the Australians and New Zealanders who are all affected by the Bill.

Mr. Rawlinson: Certainly. But if my hon. Friend compares the numbers of Irishmen who served in the last war

with the population of Ireland, he will find that more fighting men in proportion to the population came from Ireland than from this country itself.
I say this as a man who is not of Irish birth or blood, but who saw fighting with the Irish soldiers and dislikes thinking that, because some of them may be caught by the Bill's provision, they may be prevented from seeking employment here. They deserve the bounty, good wishes and good will of this country far more than many people who, for some reason or other, may not have played such a great part in the last war, although members of the Commonwealth.

Commander J. S. Kerans: As an Irishman, may I say that I am very grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's remarks?

Mr. Rawlinson: I am glad to receive such expected, I should say, support from that very important quarter.
We must consider the geographical and historical basis of the association between the two peoples. There may be a Government in Northern Ireland and a Government in Southern Ireland, but the two peoples, the English and the Irish, are closely associated by reason of history and geography which no politician and no amount of legality can sever.
It was perhaps the insanity of our predecessors in this Chamber—the insanity of Governments and sometimes the treason of Oppositions—which created a situation necessitating two Parliaments, one in the North and one in the South, and that part of the British Isles to that extent is separate and apart from us. The yardstick which most ordinary English people take is that, when they are among them, they can see little which distinguishes Irishmen from themselves, whether it be their manner, appearance, language, voice or religion.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and other hon. Members who represent Irish constituencies know much better than I, we cannot prevent the crossing of that border between the North and the South of Ireland. We could not conceivably have it made into an iron curtain or a wall built up between North and South. It is impossible to imagine


that that could happen. Therefore, there will always be the flow of the citizens of the Republic into the United Kingdom, whether it is across that border or across the 20 miles of water. It is a very different situation which faces those people and their association with us than faces the others who are concerned with us as part of a great Commonwealth in allegiance to which I am second to none in subscribing.
I ask my hon. Friends to remember the facts of history and geography and to realise that administratively, although it is brought into the Bill for the reasons which I accept, this exemption cannot be carried out and it seems to be the sensible solution to this eternal problem.

Mr. Delargy: Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) drew attention to the fact that I am the son of a couple of Irish immigrants. For that reason, I want to say a few words to the Committee. I found my hon. Friend's speech exceedingly interesting, particularly when she referred to immigration from Ireland in other generations.
My hon. Friend referred to the great contribution which Irish immigrants have made to the social and political life of Britain. They made, I might add, a much greater contribution to the building of the Labour Party. I hope that hon. Members on this side, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) included, will never overlook that fact. In the first Labour Government, we had J. R. Clynes, who came to Oldham when he was about 4 years of age, his parents having been evicted somewhere in the West of Ireland. He became the first Member for the Old Platting constituency and I became the last. The Irish in those parts gave about half a dozen lord mayors to Manchester.
In the same first Labour Government, we had John Wheatley and Stephen Walsh and other Members who were not in the Government, including James O Grady, James Sexton, Jack Jones and many others of that generation of Irish immigrants who helped to build the Labour Party. One might also refer to my hon. Friend the present Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), who belonged to that generation.

Mr. Wise: And some on this side, too.

Mr. Delargy: Yes, but I did not notice many people on that side of the House of Commons making a contribution to the Labour Party. That is what I was talking about. We have had only two Members for the Scotland Division of Liverpool in the last 76 years. T. P. O'Connor was there for about 44 years and my hon. Friend has represented the constituency for the last 32 years.
I did not follow the logic of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) when moving the Amendment. He said that he did not want the Irish to be in a privileged position, but that is precisely what his Amendment would do by excluding them from the operation of the Bill. I have not the slightest objection to putting the Irish in a privileged position, which is why I shall vote for the Amendment if it is taken to a Division. But I want to put everybody else in a privileged position, which is why I agree wholeheartedly with the substance of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich. Of course, I do not want to give to the Irish privileges which are withheld from the Jamaicans. What I objected to in the speech of my right hon. Friend was its manner of presentation. There are ways of putting an argument without making long research and digging up savoury statistics and presenting them to the Committee with emphasis and relish. I agree, however, with the substance of my right hon. Friend's speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said that he was talking against the Bill, and, of course, he was, but his argument would seek to extend its scope. I am against the Bill and I want to exclude from it as many people as possible, which is why I voted to exclude the citizens of Ghana and why I would have voted, had I been allowed to do so, to exclude all the other nine countries about which we had the big row last week. If, however, I am to be logical, I must support the Amendment to exclude the Irish from the Bill.
Let us be realistic. Everybody knows that these proposals will not work. Nobody expects them to work. Nobody in his sane senses wants them to work. The Home Secretary will be terrified at the fear that they might work. He would be in great trouble with some of his


colleagues. What, for example, would the Minister of Health say if no more Irish girls came over here to staff our hospitals? I am told that about half the nurses in the hospitals of Britain come from Ireland and that they are excellent nurses. I have never heard any hospital patients or former patients complain about the treatment they have received from the Irish nurses.
If it comes to that, I have never heard any of them complain about the treatment they have received from coloured doctors and nurses, and there are about 3,600 coloured doctors in our hospitals. They perform about 50 per cent. of all emergency operations. Without them, the Health Service would by now have collapsed. The fact that people who have been in hospital never complain, but, on the contrary, praise and are grateful for the treatment they receive from coloured nurses, prompted my noble Friend, Baroness Summerskill, a week or so ago in another place to make the wise conclusion that it would seem that when a person is sick, he becomes more rational and less prejudiced. That prompts me to the thought—

The Chairman: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that the discussion is about Ireland.

Mr. Delargy: Yes, Sir Gordon, so it is. I was speaking about the contribution which Irish immigrants make to our hospital services. Similarly, the Minister of Transport would be annoyed if these words in the Bill meant what they say, because if he goes ahead with his road programme—although none of us can be sure of that—how will he do it without the labour of the men who built the M.1 and all the other big motorways in Britain?
What would the Minister of Power say if Irish labour was withdrawn from the power stations? It is practically exclusively Irish. One meets them everywhere. I remember once visiting that extraordinary installation at Fylingdales, where we are building a four-minute warning system. I met a man there who was an Irishman, who said that he had seen me last at the atomic power station at Bradwell. I asked whether he always did this kind of work. He replied, "Oh, yes. I have been doing nothing else for

fourteen years." He and many like him lead this hard and lonely life. They have no homes of their own and they live in camps and in huts. This man at Fylingdales made an extraordinary remark. I spoke to him about this early-warning system and asked what he thought about it. He answered, "I try not to think about it at all. It is terrifying." I asked what good four minutes would be. He replied, "Well, there is time for a pint or a prayer."
The Clause will not work, primarily because it is not intended to work. Hon. Members have drawn attention to the difficulty of patrolling the border. I was rather amused by the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell), who told the Committee that he had never been to Northern Ireland, except, he said, Ulster. I hope that in all the speeches that follow, we will not hear the word "Ulster" any more, because in this context it is meaningless since Ulster includes three counties which belong to the Republic. In fact, the most northern county in Northern Ireland is in Southern Ireland.
The hon. Member said that he had never been to Northern Ireland. That was obvious when he asked about the non-British and British-Irish wearing badges. One can imagine that on the Sandy Road, having a badge or being without one would create strange situations or dealing in tickets as though there would be yet another black market added to those which thrive and bristle on the border.
Of all the speeches I have heard today, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock was the most interesting. Quite the best one to which we have listened has been that of the hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson). The hon. Member put his finger on the whole point. There are so many geographical, historical and traditional reasons which outweigh all the legal reasons to which we have listened. His argument was all the more interesting because he is a legal gentleman. His speech was the best of the debate and it showed how futile the whole thing is.

7.45 p.m.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) referred to the best and the most interesting speeches


in the debate. The hon. Member's speech was at least the most consistent, because he was in favour of discrimination for the Irish, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), and if the opportunity arises he will vote for the Opposition Amendment. Apart from the speech by the hon. Member and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom, whose intervention was courageous but unfortunate, there has been a feeling in the Committee that we are in a difficulty about Ireland, not for the first time.
One of my hon. Friends spoke about the baleful influence of Irish affairs upon this House. It would be fairer to talk about the baleful influence of this House upon Irish affairs, because a great many of the anomalies with which we are dealing have arisen as the result of English politicians misjudging and misreading the situation in Ireland down the centuries.
With regard to the Bill, there is obviously a substantial body of opinion, on both sides of the Committee, which feels that it would be unfair and wrong to impose a system of control of immigration upon Commonwealth citizens which was not also applied to the citizens of the Irish Republic. That feeling would be widespread throughout the country and it is obviously the difficulty in which the Government find themselves.
It would be easy for the Government to have solved the problem by saying that they would place the controls embodied in the Bill at the ports. The Government recognise, however, that the sea is not the border of the United Kingdom. The sea is not the frontier. The United Kingdom has a land frontier, the land frontier in Ireland, and it would be wrong if we were controlling immigration into the United Kingdom to control it at the sea border, which is not the frontier of the United Kingdom.
The Government rightly consulted the Northern Ireland Government about their views. The view of the Northern Ireland Government has been that it would be wrong not to recognise clearly that Northern Ireland is an integral part

of the United Kingdom and that, therefore, one could not envisage a situation in which to pass from one part of the United Kingdom to another it was necessary to have passports.
The idea of passports has been rejected by the Ulster people, and rightly so. It has, however, put the Government here in a difficulty and we recognise this. We recognise that the difficulties which the Government face about the Bill have been due to the fact that they recognise the position of Ulster—I prefer to use that name for Northern Ireland, in spite of what the hon. Member for Thurrock said—within the United Kingdom and have agreed that it would be intolerable that Ulster citizens should have to carry passports to pass from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
There is more in that objection than simply pride, and this must be recognised. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell), who spoke about badges of loyalty and that sort of nonsense, did not meet the problem. There is more to it than just pride. We are trying to deal with a serious unemployment problem in Northern Ireland. One of the things we make much of in dealing with that problem is the fact that Ulster is not a foreign country, that it is not even a Colony, that it is part of the United Kingdom, and that there are no difficulties in travel between "our" part of the United Kingdom and the rest of it.
If we are to introduce some sort of passport system, however easily operated, it would mean that not only anybody travelling from "our" part of the United Kingdom to this part of the United Kingdom, or the other way round, would have to acquire some form of identification, whether passport, travel permit or something else, but, having acquired it, he would have to go through a process of checking. For what is the point of having a card unless there is some system of control and checking? Therefore, as soon as we introduced that type of formality we should damage the Northern Ireland economy. This is substantial and serious to us apart from any question of pride, and therefore it is not acceptable to us or to the Northern Ireland Government.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I followed my hon. and gallant Friend's argument very carefully up to the last point when he made the statement that the institution of a travel document or other document of identification will of itself be very damaging to the Northern Ireland economy, but he did not justify that statement.

Captain Orr: I thought that I had justified that earlier when I said that we in Northern Ireland were trying to attract new industry. One of the arguments we use is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that there is no need for any formality. If a director of a company is being induced to come to Northern Ireland either from England or from the United States to set up there, he can be told that he is coming into the United Kingdom without formality. As soon as formality is introduced we introduce a practical and psychological difficulty which we think would do damage to the economy of Northern Ireland.
This is not to say that, having made that objection, if we are going to argue that we are not to have passports or permits and also to argue at the same time that there should not be discrimination in favour of the citizens of the Irish Republic as against the Commonwealth, the onus and duty does not fall upon us to suggest how that situation can be altered. In the course of thinking about this we have had many ideas, some of which have been put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Some of these ideas have been discussed among ourselves and we fully agree that there are very great difficulties.
There is the idea, which many of us thought might work, of applying the principle of our Safeguarding of Employment Act to the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government have examined that very carefully. I acknowledge that they have produced fairly substantial objections to it, on the ground of the relationship between employment control in this country and the whole of the National Insurance scheme. I concede that that would require great legislative changes in this country. It would require changes in the whole basis of the Welfare State and I agree that that would be difficult.
There has, however, been one basic assumption in the whole of our discussions of this problem which it did not occur to me to challenge until quite recently when one of my hon. Friends spoke to me about it. It is the assumption that it is impossible to apply control to the United Kingdom frontier in Ireland. I challenge that. The more one thinks about it the more one becomes convinced that this is the way to deal with the problem.
The argument has been that because we could not do it in war time we cannot do it in peace time, but the problem is completely different. In war time we were dealing with a serious security problem. It is a very long border to police and control and that would be impossible in war time. It would be impossible in terms of manpower to prevent the odd, single, dangerous agent from crossing a border like the Irish border, but when we are dealing with immigration control we are not dealing with one single immigrant who might wish to steal over a narrow road in the mountains of Donegal. The object of the Bill, presumably, is to control large-scale immigration and to provide in certain circumstances a check on large numbers of immigrants.
The Irish border is not difficult at all from that point of view, because only fifteen main roads cross the border on which there are Customs posts, and there are nine railway posts. It is very easily controlled. There is only one main railway line across the border. If we are concerned with large-scale immigration it is surely easy to control these few main roads, to place immigration officials where we have Customs posts already, and to have control just like the Customs control on the trains. I cannot see why this is such a problem. It is a totally different problem in peacetime when, as I have said, we are not concerned about one dangerous man, compared with what it was in war time when we were concerned about such a situation.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that it would make it very much easier for those of us who have grave doubts on this principle of not discriminating in favour of foreign citizens as against citizens of the Commonwealth if he could say that he would


look again at the possibility of having this control over the land frontier in Ireland. I believe that that control is possible. I think that it would assist us greatly when we come to Third Reading if something like that could be done.
I, of course, cannot speak for Ulster people as a whole, or for the Ulster Government. I cannot say exactly how they would look at this, but I have no reason to believe that the Ulster Government would be opposed to immigration control on the border. I can say with certainty, and with the certainty that they are right, that the Ulster Government would be opposed to anything which would seem to suggest that the frontier of the United Kingdom is on the Irish Sea between here and Northern Ireland.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. and gallant member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has made a most closely reasoned speech and has put forward a definite and constructive idea. I had thought that the whole idea of policing the border had been demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and I think that I still accept his experience in this matter. Moreover, if the only way in which the Bill can be operated fairly is by policing the border, then that is a further reason against it. I do not want to police the border. Many hon. Members, including myself, and a majority of the people in Ireland, want to do away with the border altogether. The sooner that is done the better. The border should never have been instituted in the first place.
If we are now told that the only way in which the Bill, which we had thought was miserable enough, can be operated is by adding further offence on making the border more permanent and the border control more irritating, and by arousing more bitterness, then that is all the stronger reason against the Bill

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating the abolition of partition? If he is, would he give me a signed copy of HANSARD tomorrow for my election address?

The Chairman: Order. I do not think that we should go into the question of partition.

Mr. Foot: I agree, Sir Gordon, but it was pressed most strongly by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South that he wants the border policed. I thought it was appropriate to say, in reply, that we do not like the border at all and that having to police it would be an argument strongly against the Bill.

Captain Orr: The border is already policed by the Ulster constabulary, in which we have full confidence. I was not suggesting further policing, but simply that a few immigration officers should be added.

Mr. Foot: I think that such a move would make movement between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland more difficult, and that that would not be a good thing, particularly, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), as some of the counties in Northern Ireland do not want to stay there. The way in which the border was established was one of the shadiest and shabbiest stories in British history. To say now that we want to make it more permanent and make more irritating the process by which people can move between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland is a further argument against the Bill, because such a move would be a retrograde step.
Except for the hon. and gallant Member and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), the Government can hardly have been very pleased with the speeches they have had from Members opposite in the debate. Almost all those who have spoken from the benches opposite have been opposed to the Bill. Indeed, one said that there had almost been unanimity in the Committee up to that point, and he meant unanimity against the speech of the Attorney-General.
We have known from the beginning that there would be large-scale discontent on the benches opposite about the Bill, Indeed, the hon. and Gallant Member for Down, South is still arguing with himself about whether he should vote with the Government on Third Reading. I do not believe that any hon. Member who has been disconcerted by the Bill who say that his


disturbed frame of mind had been removed by the Attorney-General's speech.
The hungry sheep look up and are not fed.
They did not get a square meal today.
We are now faced with a ludicrous situation, chiefly owing to the Home Secretary's attitude. Once upon a time, when there was another famous Bill before the House of Commons the cry was raised outside, "The Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill." The slogan on which the Home Secretary seeks to rally his followers is somewhat different. He says, "The Bill, or rather half the Bill, or rather those Clauses of the Bill which can subsequently be found to work, contrary to our previous expectations". That is the battle cry on which he invites the Committee to support him.
The right hon. Gentleman was not assisted at all by the Attorney-General, who invented an entirely new explanation of this Clause. The Home Secretary said originally that the Irish were to be dealt with under the Bill. Then he came along and said that he found that was impossible, and that, therefore, the Irish were not to be dealt with under the Bill. But the Attorney-General, who has a much more brilliant approach than that, said that the Bill has been so brilliantly devised that it is flexible enough to deal with any situation, and that the Government wanted to bring the Irish within its provisions. He said that when the Government discovered the difficulties, they wanted to exclude the Irish again, but then found that the Bill was so delicate, so brilliant, so wonderful a piece of legal machinery, that it could be applied to any hypothetical situation.
The Home Secretary, however, is different. He is a plain and blunt fellow. He would not agree to this complicated argument. He told us, quite frankly, "We cannot have it. The thing will not work. We cannot do it." If we cannot do it, it would be much better to knock this provision out of the Bill, and that is what the Amendment proposes. I do not see why it should be regarded as illogical.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South was suggesting that this Clause makes the Amendment

utterly hypocritical. Everyone knows, except the Attorney-General, that this part will never be carried out. The Government would be in a more honest situation if they knocked it out. The Attorney-General has put forward the most staggering argument. I do not think that any such doctrine has ever been announced from the Treasury Bench before. He argued that it would be invidious not to have reference to the Irish in the Bill. Later, he explained why the Government could not operate that reference, but added that the character of the Bill is altered by the manner in which its powers are to be exercised.
If that is the case, what are we doing here? What is the purpose of a Committee stage? If the manner in which the Bill is to be exercised and operated may be something which bears no relation to what we have passed, why are we considering it in Committee? The right hon. and learned Gentleman put forward an utterly indefensible proposition. We have a Committee stage precisely to tie down what the Government are proposing to do.
Although the Government will not be able to deal with the Irish immigrants even by means of the device suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South—they would have said so earlier if they had thought that that was the way to do it—it has been made clear by them that, if they could find a way of keeping out the Irish, they would. That is the Home Secretary's position. Is it not? Would he care to answer me now? Would he agree that if there were an effective way of keeping out the Irish on the same basis as the others he would do it? Is that what he believes?
The right hon. Gentleman has said that the only reason why he cannot do this and satisfy Members opposite is because it is unworkable. If it were workable, therefore, the Government, presumably, would like to do it. It is the desire of the Bill to exclude the Irish immigrants on the same basis as the others. That does not make the Bill better, but worse. I do not want to keep out either the Jamaicans or the Irish.
Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the very great contribution


made by Irish people who come into the country at the present time as nurses and to do other jobs. If we look back over our history, we may imagine what our position would have been if this Bill had been applied over the past centuries. Think of the impoverishment of the life of this country. Would Bernard Shaw have been allowed to come to this country? He was living at his mother's expense at the time. He would not have been allowed in under those circumstances.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Nor would the Duke of Wellington.

Mr. Foot: It might have been a good idea to have kept him out in view of the way in which he ran the Home Office and other Departments of the Government after 1815. There are many other famous figures, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will always think in these military terms.
There was, for instance, Michael Davitt, whom I had the honour to be named after. He was put in Dartmoor for a crime he had never committed. Under these provisions, he would have been sent back to Ireland after his sentence and would never have been allowed to contribute to our life. One can go back to all the great and famous Irishmen who came here to make themselves famous. Jonathan Swift would never have been allowed in under these provisions.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If this Bill had been applied to Scotland we would never have had the Prime Minister.

Mr. Foot: That is the first powerful defence of the Bill that we have had, but we must not be tempted to compromise our principles by such an argument of expediency.
The argument I am putting is a serious one, and the Home Secretary may think it a matter of no great importance as to whether we are to exclude a large number of Irishmen before they make their contribution to our life. The great playwright Brendan Behan would probably not have been allowed into this country if the Bill had been in operation a few years ago.

Mr. Delargy: In the interests of accuracy, I should remind my hon. Friend that for some years Behan had a deportation order against him.

Mr. Foot: Under the Bill he would not have been able to get here in the first place. Nor would anybody who had had a criminal conviction for that, according to the Home Secretary, is the sort of person we do not want here at all. But many people who have had criminal convictions have done great service to the country.
Again, under this Clause, people can be kept out on grounds of security. In that case, there is hardly a great Irishman who has supported the Labour Party in the past who would not have been excluded. The programme put forward by the Chartists, 150 years ago, has been carried out to the letter, except for the one item of annual Parliaments—and I am beginning to be strongly in favour of that. The Chartists' success was very largely due to great Irishmen like Bronterri O'Brien. He would never have been allowed in under this Bill.
Hon. Members may say that these are just historical reflections, but they are not. The whole principle on which this country has been associated with Ireland over the years will be repudiated by the Bill and many Irishmen who may be future Shaws, Davitts or O'Briens will be refused the right to come to this country if the Government have their way in retaining this provision in the Bill.

Captain Orr: That is not correct. When these people the hon. Member has mentioned came here, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The Bill would never have applied to them.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has not followed what I was saying. If the principle of the Bill could have been applied over the years past it would have had the effect that I have stated, for the Government are saying that because Ireland is out of the Commonwealth they wish to apply it to the Irish people.

Captain Orr: It was not out of the Commonwealth in those days.

Mr. Foot: I understand that, but it does not alter the desire of the Government to put on immigration controls to


prevent Irishmen, amongst others, from coming to this country. I say that when one looks at the history of the association between Ireland and this country one must be horrified that the Government should introduce a Bill, part of whose purpose, even though the Government say they cannot carry it out—they would if they could—is to repudiate the natural, proper relations between this country and Ireland.

Mr. John Hall: Is the hon. Member quite accurate? As I understand it, the purpose of the Government's Measure is merely to control the rate, and there may come a time when the flow of great Irishmen to this country becomes so considerable that, to give the poor Englishman a chance, we may have to slow it down a little.

Mr. Foot: The Bill is not concerned only to control the rate. It gives powers to the Home Secretary to deny people the right to come here on grounds of security to be decided by the Home Secretary. That has nothing to do with the rate. There are other provisions, which we shall have to discuss later, which are nothing to do with the rate but which give power to the Home Secretary to decide what kind of people will be allowed into the country, whether they come from the Commonwealth or Ireland.
The point made by many hon. Members—and it is one of the reasons why debates on the Committee stage of the Bill are worthless, because if the Bill were primarily concerned with the rate of immigration, we would be told what the rate was—is that there is nothing about the numbers to be allowed in. Yet we all know that the operation of the Bill, whether it is applied to the Irish or anybody else, will depend on the numbers allowed in.
We are asked to give a mighty power to the Government to operate the Bill. The Attorney-General carried it even further when he said, "We demand that the Committee should leave in this subsection about Ireland. We do not think that we can carry it out, but we would like to have it in case at some time we have to pull it out of the pigeon hole." That is a most undignified situation for the House of Commons.
We are being asked to vote this power to put relations between this country and

Ireland on a different basis, but not knowing whether the Government are to use it, not knowing whether they are to invoke it at any time, and not knowing in what circumstances they will invoke it. They will not have to come to the House of Commons and say that they are to take action against Ireland. They will have the power to do so whenever they want.
The proper course from the point of view of both sides of the Committee is to leave out the subsection. The arguments for knocking it out have been overwhelming, so let us knock it out. If the Government did knock out this subsection, they would appear slightly less hypocritical than they now do. If they persist in saying that they will hang on to this subject, giving them the power to exclude the Irish, I hope that the Committee will vote for the Amendment and signify its views in the Lobby. Judging by the speeches of many hon. Members opposite, I should think that many of them would want to come into the Lobby with us.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) addressed us with his usual eloquence and entertained us in his usual way and we all enjoyed his contribution. However, at the beginning of his remarks he gave a false impression. He gave the impression that numbers of my hon. Friends had said that they were very worried and that they disapproved of the Bill. With respect, he has got that wrong. My impression is that a number of my hon. Friends are in my position, that is to say, we do not disapprove of the Bill, because we accept the necessity for it and are in favour of it and have voted for it up to now, but we are worried about the Government's statement that they propose, in spite of what is said in the Bill, to treat the Irish in a way better than that accorded the rest of the Commonwealth. That is my position. The Amendment seeks to delete the Irish from the provision of the Bill and does not find any favour with me, because I want the Irish to be treated no better and no worse than members of the Commonwealth.
There are three reasons why I find myself very worried about the present


state of affairs. I will try to state them briefly, because they are not very different from some of the things which worry some of my hon. Friends. The first is that, whatever we may say about it, the Bill has a considerable effect on our relationship with the Commonwealth It is a step which affects the Commonwealth. In spite of what hon. Members opposite may say, it is not a colour-bar Bill, but it could be easily represented by those unfavourably disposed towards us as being detrimental to the Commonwealth, a colour bar and so on. Intelligent people throughout the Commonwealth will realise the necessity for it, but there are many who do not have access to HANSARD and our daily newspapers and who do not follow all the arguments advanced in the Committee for and against various proposals in the Bill.
It will be very easy for our enemies to influence those people into supposing that Great Britain is doing something thoroughly detrimental to the Commonwealth. By this decision of the Government not to apply the Bill to the Irish, we are giving those enemies of this country an additional hammer.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is not only our enemies who are misled but almost all the organs of the Press in Great Britain—The Times, the Guardian, and most of the other newspapers. If we are to stop them from being misled, we have a big job on our hands.

Mr. Atkins: I do not doubt that many people are being misled and the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) is adding ammunition to them. What I meant was that there are many people who do not regard the British Commonwealth as a good institution and who are trying to destroy it and who are finding that the Bill is something which they can talk about and misrepresent.

The Chairman: The Amendment is concerned with Ireland only.

Mr. Atkins: I will try to keep in order. To sum up what I was trying to say, the fact that the Bill is not to apply to the Irish will give an additional weapon to the enemies of this country who are trying to discredit us in the Commonwealth. I will leave it where it is.
The second reason why I am worried concerns this country and has already been mentioned. It is the matter of deportation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that if people were deported to Ireland under Part II of the Bill, what would stop them from coming back would not be' the operation of Part I, but simply the fear that if they returned to this country they would be liable to prosecution. We deport people because we do not want them here, and presumably we deport them because they have committed an offence. But they are quite likely to come back again, even though that might be an offence. I should like some further reassurance on this issue. The whole point of deporting people is to get rid of them and I should very much like to hear whether the only way of effectively deporting people and keeping them out is the simple fear that if they return they will be liable to be fined.
My third reason affects the House of Commons. I could understand the Government asking the House of Commons to give them power to do something and saying, "We do not know whether we will need it, but here is our case; we want power to take certain action if necessary; will you give us that power?" We would discuss the matter and decide whether to give the Government that power. Equally, the Government could say, "We want to do something and here is a Bill which will enable us to do it".

The Chairman: Can the hon. Member tell me how he relates this argument to the Amendment?

Mr. Atkins: With pleasure, Sir Gordon. At the moment the Government have asked Parliament for authority to do something, at the same time saying that they are not going to do it. If they had said, "We want powers to do it in the future if the necessity arises", I could have understood it; but they say, "We want authority to do something and we propose to do it in part, but not in whole", and I cannot find myself very happy about that. I am quite prepared to give the Government power to do something, but I am completely in the dark about this. Are they to operate the Bill or not? Either they should ask


for power to operate it if necessary, or say that they are to operate it and operate it all together. They have said that they will not operate it against the Irish because that is difficult.
It is up to me, having criticised the Government, to try to be constructive. It is very difficult for an ordinary hon. Member to suggest exactly how immigration control should be operated, but I was impressed by the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). It has constantly been said that it is impossible to control the border between Northern and Southern Ireland. The German, or Canadian, or American to whom that was said would merely roar with laughter. It is simply that we have never had to do it. Surrounded by sea, we have been able to use that as our frontier and control has been very easy for us. I cannot believe that it is impossible to have immigration control on the border between Northern and Southern Ireland. I am reinforced in that view by an hon. and gallant Member from Northern Ireland.
I ask the Government to reconsider this issue and to see whether control is possible. As things stand, the Southern Irish, against whom I have nothing and among whom I have many friends, are given preferential treatment over Commonwealth citizens, and that is a position which I am not readily able to support. I have supported the Government up to now and I want to continue to do so, but unless I can have some assurance, I do not think I can.

Mr. Diamond: The last speech, to which I listened with great interest, was another example of the difficulties which Conservative Members of Parliament are experiencing and which my hon. Friends and I have witnessed in every speech by hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members opposite have accepted the principle of the Bill, which is control of immigration, without examining it. Now that examination is forced upon them, they realise that the logic of it will not allow them to support it fully. They are trying to draw a line at point A, point B or point C. They are not prepared to face the fact that only one logical conclusion is emerging from our examination of the

Amendment, namely that we have to go the whole way and wring the neck of this rotten Bill.
I will explain my reason for saying this. Every hon. Member has no doubt had the same experience as I have had of being asked on platform after platform while this question was under consideration and before the Bill was put before Parliament, "What are your views about control of coloured immigrants?" It has always been expressed in terms of coloured immigrants. My answer has always been, "The largest numbers of immigrants into this country in recent years have been the Irish. I am not prepared to stop my cousins from Ireland coming to this country."
To anyone who asks me, "Are you prepared to accept the Irish and prevent other immigrants—coloured immigrants—coming", I say that that is simply a plain colour bar and I do not stand for anything in my political view if I am prepared to accept a colour bar. That is a simple and logical position to adopt, and none of my hon. Friends is in the slightest difficulty, because all my hon. Friends follow the logic the whole way through. It is hon. Members opposite, many of whom have made liberal speeches evidencing the difficulties they feel about the Amendment, who face this difficulty, and I want to help them a little if I can.

Mr. Chataway: is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument that, if Irish immigrants could be controlled, he would accept the whole Bill?

Mr. Diamond: That is not so. I have already explained that my first premise is that I am not prepared in any circumstances to exclude Irish immigrants from this country. That was my first statement. Therefore, I am not prepared to exclude anybody from the Commonwealth who is coloured. This is a perfectly simple and logical argument.
8.30 p.m.
Hon. Members opposite are in this difficulty. They obviously cannot exclude people from Northern Ireland, because they realise the fundamental truth that practically everybody living in Northern Ireland feels himself to be British through and through. We cannot exclude from Britain a member of


the United Kingdom who feels himself to be British. Hon. Members opposite would help themselves in their consideration of these difficult problems if they would realise that the real distinction is not what we think other people are but what they think they are.
The one country which has set an example in dealing with the problem of immigration on a vast and almost inconceivable scale is Israel. Israel has accepted immigrants on one definition only. To anybody who wanted to go to Israel who has said, "I feel myself to be a Jew", Israel has said, "Come in". How else could they define, after the passage of 2,000 years, those people in different quarters of the world who are by descendent entitled to call themselves Jews?
It is obvious that we cannot exclude Northern Ireland or put any control over it. The next stage of the argument is introduced by this probing Amendment. Can we exclude the Southern Irish? What is the distinction between the Southern Irish and the Northern Irish? We again realise that this cannot be done. As has been made perfectly clear, in spite of what the hon. Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has alleged, it cannot be done physically. I accept what the Government say about this. It cannot be done physically and it cannot be done metaphysically. The irritation, almost the rebellion, that would be felt throughout the whole of Southern Ireland if a fence were put across the division between these two States dividing, as we should have to divide, the southern part of the Irish Republic from the northern part of the Irish Republic, would be absolutely intolerable and would cause far more incidents than already take place.

Captain Orr: Simple immigration control would not be any more vexatious than the Customs control which already exists.

Mr. Diamond: Everybody knows that it is not effective. Smuggling goes on across the border, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree, to such a degree that it is unfair to other smugglers to use that term in other areas.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the Franco-German border, the Belgian border, the

Italian border, and so on. If these Continental countries, which have had experience of manning borders over a long period, can do this, why cannot we do it?

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt return to Ireland and suggest that a wall should be built, on the style of the wall dividing East Berlin from West Berlin, between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. If he does not think that this is a fair answer to his question, I invite him to consider the practice and not the theories. I invite him to listen to what has been said by Irish Members on this side of the Committee. I invite him to remember what the Government have said. Is he not prepared to pay some regard to that? If he is not prepared to pay attention to any of these things, will he not use his common sense?

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is it not possible that Britain, having experience of immigration through her ports, tends to look with some scepticism at this type of approach?

Mr. Diamond: I am delighted that hon. Members opposite keep pressing this point, because it illustrates what I am saying. They are trying their hardest to find some point of no further retreat—to find something they can hang on to, so that they do not have to admit that they must retreat all the way along the line and that we cannot exclude the Northern Irish and therefore we cannot exclude the Southern Irish. If we included those two it would be wholly unacceptable, as all hon. Members opposite agree, to differentiate between them and the members of the Commonwealth.
Therefore we are driven back against the whole of the Bill. But, because hon. Members opposite are unwilling to be driven that far, they have unthinkingly, and without full examination, been prepared to accept the Bill, in a hurried manner and for no adequate reason—because the Bill does not deal with the real problem. They are now trying to say, in the face of Government advice, that it is possible to have an effective division between Northern and Southern Ireland.

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Mr. Diamond: I have given way five times. I do not think that the hon.


Member has listened to the whole debate, but I have been here all the time.
I want to examine the Government's case for leaving Irishmen in the Bill although they will not operate its provisions in respect of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who made an excellent speech in moving the Amendment, said very forthrightly that we regard this as blackmail. If the Government say it is not blackmail they can easily prove it by telling us how many Commonwealth immigrants, especially coloured Commonwealth immigrants, have been migrating into Southern Ireland recently and causing the Government of the Republic to be so concerned about this inflow that they are preparing this legislation.
If that is not the case—and my information is that there is no such migration to the land of no jobs and to the land of unemployment, or even to Northern Ireland, with its permanent and persistent 8 per cent. unemployment—it follows that the Government of the Republic are not coincidentally and happily producing legislation which they have been cogitating upon for a long time because of the pressure that has been building up.
The fact is that the Government of the Republic of Ireland have done a deal with the British Government. It is a very simple deal. The Home Secretary has said, "We will let in your boys if you will keep out the other boys." That is as simple and as effective a way to proceed as one could imagine—and it is plain blackmail, as my hon. Friend says. Let the Home Secretary prove me wrong if I am wrong.
What possible justification can there be for this? The Attorney-General has said, "There will be legislation similar to that which we are introducing, and it will be complementary to ours." He was interrupted at that point by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) who asked him how it would work, but he got no satisfactory answer. The hon. Member for Mitcham is right. If we examine the situation we must see that it cannot work. Let us imagine that the Government are proceeding on the basis that we want x thousand immigrants in a certain year. That figure will be

decided by the Home Office, within its discretion under the Bill.
Let us suppose that we allow in the whole of the x thousand. What figure will the Eire Government adopt in their immigration policy? They will exclude every immigrant of every kind, otherwise immigrants could come from the Commonwealth to Eire and then on to this country, so that the number of immigrants decided upon by the Government will be exceeded. What about the various categories? Any category that an hon. Member cares to mention will be in exactly the same position.
This procedure cannot work unless the two Governments are working in complete harmony and liaison the whole time. In this matter I am delighted to have the influential support of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who is a former Home Secretary and who knows what he is talking about, which is often more than many of us do, although we try to do our best. I say to the Home Secretary that it would not work.
The reply of the Government is, "We know it will not work." It is a fantastic situation. They know that it will not work, but they want it as a reserve power. They say, "It is not that we are in trouble at the moment but there will come a time when we shall be overwhelmed by Irish immigrants to this country and we shall need reserve powers to deal with them. Let us have them now." Reserve powers to do what? To do what the Government say they cannot do, totally ineffective powers which the Government want to incorporate in the Bill. What nonesense the Committee is troubled with by being asked to give the Government reserve powers which are ineffective, and which the Government know are ineffective, to control immigration.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does it not go a little beyond that? I understood that the argument of the Attorney-General was that he wants this power in the Bill because it will not work.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is Irish. [Laughter.]

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend has spoken well. The Committee will forgive me if I cannot find it in me to be


amused by anything in this Bill. I think this is such a shocking retrograde step, such art illiberal step, so damaging to the relations of this country with the world as a whole, that I can find nothing funny to say about it at all.
I come to the Government's justifications. There is the justification of the reserve powers. They say that they want this as a reserve although the powers are totally ineffective and although it is admitted that the largest category of immigrants are Irish. If anybody is to be excluded, by excluding the largest class the Government will deny themselves the original argument that we are being overwhelmed by too many immigrants and need to control them. If we need to control them on grounds of numbers, the last category to exclude is the largest one of all. If the central logic of my first position cannot be maintained, and it certainly cannot be maintained, however unpleasant it may be for hon. Members who wish to support the Bill, up to a point, it is seen to be a plain colour-bar Measure. That must be our main argument against it.
I have had so much experience with Irish workers in this country that I defy anyone to say that they are not making a valuable contribution to our economy. Many hon. Members have referred to their work in building. I shall never forget how during the war a company in which I had considerable responsibility was charged with building an American hospital. Of the 2,000 workers employed almost all were Irish. They were dumped into a field and charged with the job of building huts. Once they had provided that accommodation, they had to build a hospital by D-day, and that was done. It was done in the most difficult conditions, miles from anywhere, and almost entirely by Irish labour. It would have been impossible to have achieved that but for the Irish.
If anyone thinks of the main problem which results from immigration he will see that it is the housing problem. What better answer to the housing problem is there than simply more and more people building houses? Of all the people we find building houses, a fair proportion are always Irish and

coloured, doing the donkey work, such as digging the foundations. Hon. Members cannot possibly go with the Government in their illogical attitude to this.
My main reason for attacking the Government is that they are debasing standards. I have been delighted to see that every hon. Member opposite has denied that this is a colour-bar Bill. Some have said that it might be thought to be a colour-bar Bill, but all have denied that it is based on colour-bar because, thank heavens, it is still reprehensible in Britain to admit to colour prejudice. If that is reprehensible then we have something solid and substantial on which to build. We can build on public opinion by pointing out that we do not want a Bill which seems to be a colour-bar Bill. In accepting such a Bill the Government are appealing to the worst in human beings.
The Home Secretary is vying with the Prime Minister in trying to debate our standards by encouraging the population to accept colour-bar standards. Fortunately the arguments being advanced are being seen to have some effect. Public opinion polls show that opinion is moving vastly in favour of those who object to the Bill. Since this would be a wholly illogical position, and since hon. Members opposite cannot draw the line either at Northern Ireland or at Southern Ireland, they had better agree that the only way to deal with the matter logically and fairly and in the interests of the whole Commonwealth is to get rid of the Bill altogether.

8.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): We have had nearly five hours of debate on this Amendment and it does not, therefore, seem unreasonable for me to intervene shortly.
The extent of the feeling about the Bill is obvious to anyone taking part in the debate. I was not at all happy about the intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), or about his remarks concerning me or anything else. We all have our convictions on this matter, and we are sorry that the intensity of feeling has meant the severance of friendships. I am as sorry as he is about that. I


speak with conviction, just as he spoke with conviction. I hope that right hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that we speak with conviction even though we may disagree with them.
The best way I can tackle my short speech is to take up immediately the hon. Member's challenges to me about the remarks which I made on 5th December. I then said that the Government had not found a workable and desirable method of controlling the entry of Irish immigrants into this country. I accept every word of that and every word which I said and which is reported in the other columns of HANSARD. That represents the truth. We have not found such a method. We have been into the matter with the greatest care.
We have been into the question of controlling the Irish border. I remind the House that the border, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with his experience of the Home Office and Ireland knows, is about 180 miles long. Much of it runs by devious ways through rough and difficult country. There are about 100 roads of different types which cross it. Only 16 of these are approved roads for Customs purposes where we have small Customs patrols. Thus, to impose an immigration control merely at those points where Customs checks have already been set up would leave vast tracts of country unsupervised and a great many serviceable but not necessarily metal roads useable by people who wish to cross the frontier.
After an intense examination of the subject with the Government of Northern Ireland, we feel that to set up a fully effective control under Whitehall—because we should take responsibility as the immigration authority—would clearly be an immensely expensive task, quite apart rom the intolerable inconvenience which would be caused by sealing off the border. In this connection, I call in aid the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), who seems to me to understand some of the difficulties of the subject.
Even during the last war this was never attempted and never done. It was decided during the last war—I have made an investigation—that it would

need an immense body of troops to supplement those who were trying to enforce immigration control. I therefore honestly believe—and I doubt whether right hon. Gentlemen opposite would differ—that to control the border would be an extremely difficult and, as I said on 5th December, a virtually impossible task. This is the view of the Northern Ireland Government, as communicated to me.
I do not intend to shirk a single point here. We face a difficult issue. I am willing to stake my personal position on this. A decision has been taken and I propose to give the House the facts, and hon. Members on either side of the House may do as they like. We have made up our minds. I shall not burke the issue one bit. I shall attempt to meet the susceptibilities of my hon. Friends and of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to meet the suggestion of my right hon. Friend in a minute or two. This is a sufficiently serious issue for me to state it with emphasis, and show the decision we have reached.
We believe that the border is uncontrollable. I heard the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who spoke with conviction, but who, I think, underestimates the difficulties. We come back again to what I said in my Second Reading speech, and what I said also on 5th December—that the only possible way to control immigration from Southern Ireland—the Irish Republic—is by control of the ports.

Captain Orr: rose—

Mr. Butler: I would rather not give way. I have to make my speech in difficult circumstances and I want to make it clearly. In my last speech there were so many interruptions that it was impossible to make the argument run.
We have come to the conclusion that to impose control of the ports would mean imposing control on United Kingdom citizens, that is, the Northern Irish. It would mean the holding of passports. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South said this would be virtually an impossibility. It might have to be done in certain circumstances, but I think that it would be most undesirable.
I should like to make it quite clear that the Government took a definite decision, which appears to have been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) and others, that we were not prepared to accept a situation of that sort, namely, passport control against our own United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland. Having reached that decision, from which I do not believe the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) would demur, we frankly came to the conclusion that it was physically and in other ways impossible to keep out the citizens of the Irish Republic.
I come to the second part of my speech, which concerns the reason why having reached that decision, we have a reserve power in the Bill. Before I come to that, I should like to say to the Committee that it will no doubt come to vote on this Amendment. The Government want to give ample time to it in due course. I do not want it to be thought that I am rushing the Committee. Hon. Members will have to realise that if they vote to take this power out there will be no power to control immigration from the Irish Republic. There is the power in the Bill. If we take out subsection (4) it would be impossible to do it in the future. I have said that it is not easy to work, and is undesirable, and that is the position I stand by.
I therefore recommend to the Committee that it should not take this power out of the Bill for the following main reasons, which were given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in his intervention earlier in the debate. The main reasons are, in fact, two. We wish to preserve a reserve power in the event of changing circumstances; for example, economic circumstances, which might make it necessary, however undesirable, and I stress that, to impose this control.
The second reason is that, in the event of the purpose of the Bill being undermined by the entry of Commonwealth immigrants through the Western ports, we should, willy-nilly, and whether we like it or not, have to impose some control, however impossible and, however undesirable it was. [Laughter.] I have to face that, because we are engaged in an Irish debate.
It would simply have to be done in the event of the Bill being undermined by Commonwealth migrants coming through the Irish ports without control. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about black-mail."] I am coming to the question of blackmail I have sat through the whole debate, and I am answering the points which have been raised.
I come to the first point, about keeping a reserve power, which has been much criticised in the debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been criticised for saying that he wishes to keep a reserve power. In this connection, I should like to refer to two thoughtful speeches, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), and the speech of the right hon. Member for Smethwick.
In answer to my hon. Friend's request as to what the nature of the Bill was—and I hope that this will be noted both in the Press and in the country outside, because much play has been made with the Press—I should like to say that the Bill is designed to control immigration and not to stop it. It is most important to get that across properly. I have absolutely no doubt that when we come to Clause 2, which relates to the method of control, as I hope we shall this evening, we can then consider the nature of the control under that Clause, and the nature of the control which will be applied. That control will certainly be operated humanely and sensibly, realising the need to match the flow of immigrants with the conditions and situations they may find here.
I say that advisedly. That is a thought-out phrase to show how we mean to operate the Bill. The hon. Member for Northfield is smiling, but he comes from Birmingham and knows that the situation there is difficult. It is one of the most difficult of all our situations. The situation in Manchester, in Brixton, and in North London is difficult, and it is up to us, as hosts of these Commonwealth migrants, to see that our conditions are satisfactorily established so that they may enjoy and profit by their time here.
That is what we intend to achieve. Hon. Gentlemen may criticise the Government for not having done this earlier, I follow that, but I say now that in trying to control this immigration we are


doing it on purpose, to make the relations within this country good between Commonwealth migrants and our people. I should like to add to the many testimonials which have been paid in the debate to the excellence of the contributions made to the running of the hospitals, railways, transport, and other services by the Commonwealth migrants who have come here. There is no question but that we cannot do without these friends who come to us from overseas. This is the spirit in which we shall interpret the Bill.
When the right hon. Member for Smethwick, who spoke with great seriousness about a possible modification of the administration of the Bill, said that we should make it totally reserved, I understood him to mean that it should be simply a reserve power, and should not be brought into operation.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Just like the Irish part of the Bill.

Mr. Butler: I do not want to make fun of it, because the right hon. Gentleman's point was serious, and I want to answer it seriously.
I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. His suggestion is a reasonable one, but it does not represent the Bill. The Bill has been brought in because, as I shall be probably saying later this evening in answer to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who raised the question of numbers, the numbers coming in for this year and recently have made us feel that some sort of control is necessary.
That is the basis of the Bill. That has been accepted by many of the critics on this side of the Committee on the Irish issue, and I think that it is generally recognised in the country, at any rate, that some sort of control of Commonwealth immigration, however distasteful, is a necessary measure at the present time.
Now I come to the second point, namely, the reserve power in the event of the purpose of the Bill being undermined by the entry of Commonwealth immigrants from Western ports. I take up all the points raised by the right hon. Member for Smethwick. These points—and they were embellished by the hon. Member for Northfield, the hon. Mem

ber for Gloucester and others—were to the effect that there was some sort of bargain, or what is called blackmail, between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Irish Republic.
I stand absolutely by all the columns of HANSARD of 5th December and entirely repudiate any such suggestion. A statement was made by the Irish Foreign Secretary, Mr. Aiken, in which he indicated that there was a likelihood of early legislation, and he concluded by saying that he would make a statement in the near future. That statement has not been made, either implementing in full what he said or indicating the type of legislation that he would carry out.
9.0 p.m.
I do not know what type of legislation the Irish Republic will introduce. I can only presume that as the Republic has undertaken to deal with the aliens problem, so that there is in that country, in the alien problem, balancing legislation to our own, a similar form of legislation—the nature of which I have no knowledge at all—may be introduced in the Dail.
I cannot go further than that, because I do not know. It is important, meanwhile, that we should reserve the position of this power. I want to answer flatly and openly the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham, who asked what is our attitude. Our attitude will be guided entirely by the nature and type of legislation introduced by the Government of the Irish Republic. Meanwhile, we have the reserve power in our own Bill.
I hope and believe that the nature of their legislation will be such that no such power will be needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham raised other alternatives in the course of his speech, and matters in this connection were also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell) and other hon. Members. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General himself referred shortly to some of the difficulties of bringing in powers of internal job labour control within the United Kingdom. This is a thing to which we are not accustomed and it is very difficult.
The first objection in principle is that it is not migration control, but job control. The second objection in principle


is that if one introduces it one will be introducing it only for those Irishmen who come here for jobs and are perhaps refused jobs. They have nothing to do with the rest of the population from Ireland who come in. After being refused jobs they could live on the social services and would not be controlled in any way. These are two profound objections in principle to this system and I can assure hon. Members that it is not through lack of work or lack of trouble that we have come to these conclusions. The difficulties of enforcement are most powerful.
I can speak on this extemporarily because I have spent the last few weeks studying the possibilities of ways of helping my hon. Friend. I have studied in detail the safeguards of the Employment Act of Northern Ireland. Not only is the scope of the problem different in Northern Ireland, but it is different because their system of National Insurance and Ministry of Labour control is amalgamated under one roof and can be administered together.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham asked whether we could not have a system of stamping insurance cards and making them a condition for work. In the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, I can say that we should have to introduce a measure of control by the Ministry of Labour giving vouchers to the Irish. That brings us to the second main difficulty compared with Northern Ireland, where there is five years' delay before one can get assistance. Here, assistance is virtually automatic and the National Assistance Board has informed me that if it were deprived of its statutory duty to require an able-bodied man to take work legislation would be needed to deprive the Board of that necessity.
Thus, we are getting to the main and profound difficulty of job control in this country. Let me follow it through. What happens next? We cannot let men starve. Therefore, what shall we do? We must resort to deportation, which matter has been raised in the course of the debate. I tell the Committee that I cannot stand here and recommend deportation for a man simply because he has been refused a job. Deportation under the Bill comes from the decision of a court for certain criminal offences. If an Irish labourer comes here, is re

fused a job by the Minister of Labour—and we need such people in work here—and is told that he will be deported, thus giving rise to all the problems about deportation which arise under the Bill, that seems to me to be an impossibly difficult thing to enforce.
I say to my hon. Friends that we have considered this matter carefully. We have looked at every possible alternative—the Northern Ireland alternative and every other. We feel that we must stand on the decision that we have taken. In view of all the difficulties, the Government have decided that the Bill shall lapse and come under review in December, 1963, and be reviewed, like the aliens legislation, annually under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill until such time as we make permanent legislation for both. That means that the Committee is being asked to wait for eighteen months or two years after the coming into effect of the Act before we review the situation as it affects Ireland or anything else. On behalf of the Government, I undertake to review every aspect of information about Irish entry to this country before that date.
The hon. Member for Northfield asked me about the number of Irish people coming here. Mr. Lemass, Prime Minister of the Southern Republic, has stated that during the twelve months ended 30th September the net loss to the Republic by migration was only 28,000. Our information from National Insurance cards show a higher figure than that. We have not the exact information, and I propose, before this Measure is reviewed, to consider every possible method of obtaining information.
There is the possibility of landing cards under the First Schedule, the possibility of National Insurance cards which, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance tells me, is practicable, and the possibility of obtaining unemployment figures from the Ministry of Labour. The National Assistance Board tells me that it can review the position at the end of a year and give me its figures as well. We shall, therefore, have all this information upon which we can base a future decision.
To sum up, I come back to my own words. It is very difficult, and undesirable, to carry out this particular control.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: It is impossible.

Mr. Butler: I do not go as far as that. I stick to the words that I used on 5th December. I consider that we should find it extremely difficult to bring in such control, but I think that in our Measure we should have two reserve powers. One should be in case of economic change and the other should be in the event of the principles of the Bill and its operation being undermined. It is on that score that I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment and to let us proceed with our business.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gordon Walker: I wish to speak only briefly because I have spoken before.
The Home Secretary's speech has convinced me more than ever that we must carry our support for this Amendment all the way. He asked us, in effect, to keep in the Bill what he describes as an unworkable Clause. That is what he said, to reduce it to a word. The reason why he wants it kept in is to frighten the Irish. He said, "We must have a reserve power in case they do not keep people out in the way that we are doing." The only reason for the preposterous proposal to keep in an unworkable Clause is to frighten the Irish. The right hon. Gentleman is like one of those harmless insects which tries to frighten its prey by inflating itself. It does not make itself any more powerful. He has said, "I am powerless. I will frighten the Irish with a powerless weapon".
The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), who made a very thoughtful speech, was absolutely right in what he said. That was proved by what the Home Secretary said. The sole purpose of the Government in this Clause is to ensure that the Irish keep out Commonwealth citizens. If the Irish do their job and keep out Commonwealth citizens, as the hon. Member for Mitcham said, Irishmen will be allowed freely into this country. If they do not keep out Commonwealth citizens, the threat is made that they will not be allowed to come here. This is the naked, anti-Commonwealth part of the Bill. This is the very heart of the anti-Commonwealth aspect of the Bill.
One reason why we must press the Amendment is that, not only will it provide us with an opportunity to give vent to our feelings, but it will give hon. Members opposite who expressed many grave doubts about this matter an opportunity to express their opinion. The Home Secretary almost challenged them to do so. He said, "Hon. Members on either side of the Committee can do as they like". These were deliberate words, and I hope that they will be taken to heart. I think that hon. Members who do as they like will vote for this Amendment and against the Government in very large numbers.

Mr. Chataway: I apologise for extending the debate, but I for one am not convinced by the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the exclusion of the Irish from the effective provisions of the Bill. However, it seemed to me from his speech that things were a great deal clearer. It seems that we are deciding a balance of preferences, a balance between the difficulties of including the Irish in the Bill and the desirability of including them in the Bill. It is a question of whether one wants the Irish in the Bill and how much one wants them to be effectively included in the Bill. This is a matter of considerable importance.
My right hon. Friend dwelt on the difficulties—he did not say impossibilities—of including the Irish in the Bill. He has not, in the main, argued about the undesirability of including them. He said that he considered that that was undesirable, without expanding it. The only Member on this side who spoke in favour of excluding the Irish from the effective provisions of the Bill was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson). His was, as one expects from him, a powerful speech. On this occasion, however, it did not seem to me that his arguments, looked at in cold reason, added up to very much.
My hon. and learned Friend pointed to the fact, of which we are all aware, that the Irish make a tremendous contribution to this country. Nobody denies it. He pointed to the fact that many thousands of the Irish fought for us during the war, and nobody denies that. All these things, however, are true of


Commonwealth citizens. My hon. and learned Friend's argument added up to nothing that would justify a discrimination in favour of the Irish against Commonwealth citizens. This is not simply a matter of public relations. It has been argued today largely in terms of how it will seem to the Commonwealth, and that is important. But it is not just simply a question of appearances. There is a point of substance here.
Immigrant unskilled labour in this country comes from two main sources, the West Indies and Ireland. To control one set and leave the other entirely free must be to set the West Indians at a disadvantage. Therefore, although one knows that there is no intention to include any degree of colour bar in this Measure—[Interruption.]—one knows that that is not the intention, and so do hon. Members opposite—this seems to me to provide the strongest argument for demanding that a way he found of including the Irish in the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
Three main methods have been discussed by so many hon. Members that I would not attempt to run over each of the three in detail. I am still left with the impression—of course, I cannot claim to be an expert in these matters—that control would be possible under all three headings. The most difficult of them is probably to ask the people of Northern Ireland to carry either a passport or a piece of paper showing that they were British citizens. I do not think that it would be such an enormous imposition. Today, everybody has to carry driving licences, insurance cards and a hundred and one different bits of paper. It would not be such a tremendous imposition on the people of Northern Ireland, but we have the assurance of one or two of my hon. Friends that it would be resented.
On the question of internal control, although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was persuasive on the scheme he had in mind to the extent that I am certain that it would not work, I am not yet convinced that a scheme which made it illegal for Southern Irishmen to enter this country would be impracticable, even if there were no effective control at the ports, even if the border

were not closed. Surely, it could be laid down that Southern Irishmen must commit themselves to voluntary control. It would immediately become known, there would be no question of anybody coming in by mistake or accident and 99 out of 100 would so submit themselves. For the rest, the fact that they had no insurance card should lead to a perfectly satisfactory system for ensuring that they would be detected if they applied for a job in this country.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the hon. Member apply the same provisions to Commonwealth citizens coming from Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Chataway: These are the provisions. I would apply the same provisions at the port of entry to Southern Irish citizens who were asked to submit to voluntary control. They have to submit to control. This is simply a means, if necessary, of getting round the difficulties that are said to exist about closing the border.
I am suggesting that Southern Irish citizens would be required to register for immigration controls in exactly the same way as every other Commonwealth citizen. Some would slip through, undoubtedly, and others would he discovered and found by means of a system based upon the insurance card, which has been discussed so much today. One cannot argue this or any such scheme, however, on the Floor of the House of Commons in this way. It is hard to argue and easy to shoot down.
Where I feel convinced that control is possible if the Government wish it is at the border. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend when he alluded to the difficulties. He said that there were a hundred roads and only sixteen Customs control points. He spoke of the feeling during the war that many troops would be required to police that border satisfactorily. As has been pointed out, there is a vast difference between immigration control in peace time and the kind of closure of a border that is required in war time.
The length of the border between Ulster and Eire is 180 miles. The length of the border between Mexico and the United States is 1,550 miles and there is immigration control. The length of the


border between Canada and the United States is nearly 4,000 miles. Canada would not be able to be a member of the Commonwealth if she exercised no control at the border between the United States and Canada.

Mr. J. Grimond: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member is saying and I agree that the practical objections can be overcome, but the real objection surely is that at last the psychological effect of this border is breaking down and we now propose to re-erect it in a manner calculated to do considerable harm to Irish relations, and for what purpose? To keep out immigrants whom we want—that is what the Home Secretary said. Does the hon. Member really think that, granted this can he done, it is worth while until it is really shown that we do not want the immigrants in this country?

Mr. Chataway: If there is to be a limitation on the total number of immigrants into this country, and particularly on the number of unskilled workers, it is only right that whatever diminution in the numbers is insisted upon should fall equally upon the two main groups. It is on that point that I would base my argument primarily.
I do not think that we can talk about erecting a fence or an iron curtain or something of that kind in the way hon. Members have spoken about it. There is a border there already and sixteen control points already apparently effective to control the free flow of goods. To bring in a few immigration officials would surely be possible and although, as we know, no land border is 100 per cent. effective, it would be effective enough. I hope that the Government will look seriously at this again. I would support the Bill because I know from my own constituency that there is need for some control and because I believe that there is a limit to the amount of immigration that can be absorbed and integrated at any one time, but I should not be able to give my support to the Bill on Third Reading unless there were some provision for the Irish that was clearly effective.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I should like to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to a point which I believe will

be of interest to him. I have very little opinion at all of him as a liberal statesman, having watched him in action at the Dispatch Box, beginning as early as 1931 when I heard him again and again as Foreign Office spokesman assure the House of Commons that he had no evidence that there was any Italian or German intervention in the Spanish Civil War. But there is one respect in which I have great regard for him and that is that he has a very nice feeling for the House of Commons. He generally regards the House as something which must be respected.
The right hon. Gentleman has heard speeches in this Committee today, almost without exception and without regard to the side from which they came, with the exception of course of the speech of the Attorney-General, which have been 100 per cent. against this provision which excludes the Irish while including the other Commonwealth countries. We on this side of the Committee have made it perfectly plain, as have a great many right hon. and hon. Members opposite, that we do not wish to exclude the Irish. Great tributes have been paid to the work that they have done both in peace and war in helping on our own brand of civilisation in this country. The point on which the right hon. Gentleman has not satisfied this Committee of the whole House today is that it is necessary to make this distinction between the Irish and the other members of the Commonwealth.
It was said by a Lord Chancellor in another place that when any body of Englishmen begin to discuss Ireland, they take leave of their senses. That appears to have been the case, to a certain extent, today with regard to all the difficulties that are alleged to exist in putting proper immigration control on Irishmen. I just do not believe that the Irish are so inherently clever that, every time, they are able to fox Anglo-Saxons.
I believe that it would be perfectly possible to put control on the border. At any rate, if some of us were in doubt about that, we must take account of the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) who should know more about the border than most of us. But there is the other point


of whether or not it would be possible or desirable to have passport control for Northern Ireland. I know that there are feelings about this, and I regard passports as uncivilised things. But if passports for Northern Irish people would prevent great harm to the Commonwealth, then we should take no notice of the very slight burden involved in visiting a passport office and going through the necessary formalities.
It is nonsense to say that this would be a real burden. It would be a petty nuisance and an uncivilised one, but if it has a great countervailing advantage to the Commonwealth, then it should be borne quite freely. It is a countervailing advantage which may have escaped the Home Secretary. We may save untold ill will in the Commonwealth if the people of Northern Ireland are prepared to pocket their pride in this matter.
But it is not just a question of pride, as the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South mentioned. He put a very good argument about it which I had not heard before, and which he said, I think, the Government had not previously noticed.- I hope we have disposed of the question of pride because, when it is the question of saving, the Commonwealth from great evil, the Northern Irish should be prepared to pocket their pride. The hon. and gallant Member's other argument was that it would harm the economy of Northern Ireland. I confess he had a serious point there, but it is a question of balance of advantage.
I believe that, if it were really a question of harming the economy of Northern Ireland, the Government could do something about it if they wanted to. They could have done something already in

their years of power, but instead they have left the country with 8 or 10 per cent. unemployment. If they wanted to make a countervailing saving of the Northern Irish economy, they could do it, but they are not prepared to do so and, therefore, it is a matter of balance of advantage. Are we to have a possible further threat to the economy of Northern Ireland—which could perfectly well be removed by the Government—or are we to have this very considerable catastrophe to the Commonwealth?

No one can say that there is not strong feeling in the country and the Commonwealth. No one who heard Sir Grantley Adams could claim that. The great principle of a multi-racial, tolerant Commonwealth is at stake. It seems to me that, in these circumstances, it would be far better to risk that economic threat to Northern Ireland—which could he removed by the Government if they cared to do so—rather than to inflict this immense blow upon the wonderful idea of the Commonwealth which we have been so successful in bringing before the world.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Michael Hughes-Young (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Lord Balniel: Disgraceful. Absolutely outrageous.

Mr. Denis Howell: Monstrous.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 259. Noes 208.

Division No. 29.]
AYES
[9.29 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bingham, R. M.
Buck, Antony


Aitken, W. T
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Bullard, Denys


Allason, James
Bishop, F. P.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Black, Sir Cyril
Burden, F. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Bossom, Clive
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bourne-Arton, A.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)


Barber, Anthony
Box, Donald
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Barlow, Sir John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Barter, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cary, Sir Robert


Batsford, Brian
Braine, Bernard
Channon, H. P. G.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Chichester-Clark, R.


Bell, Ronald
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Brooman-White, R.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth.W.)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cleaver, Leonard


Bitten, John
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Biggs-Davison, John
Bryan, Paul
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.




Corfield, F. V.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Coulson, J. M.
Jennings, J. C.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pym, Francis


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ramsden, James


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Peter


Cunningham, Knox
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Curran, Charles
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rees, Hugh


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, David


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Deedes, W. F.
Lagden, Godfrey
Ridsdale, Julian


de Ferranti, Basil
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rippon, Geoffrey


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Doughty, Charles
Leather, E. H. C.
Roots, William


du Cann, Edward
Leburn, Gilmour
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Duncan, Sir James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Ronald


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lindsay, Martin
St. Clair, M.


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Scott-Hopkins, James


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Litchfield, Capt. John
Seymour, Leslie


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Loveys, Walter H.
Shaw, M.


Farr, John
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Fell, Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Finlay, Graeme
McAdden, Stephen
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Forrest, George
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Speir, Rupert


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Freeth, Denzil
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Stodart, J. A.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maddan, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gibson-Watt, David
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Talbot, John E.


Gilmour, Sir John
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Douglas
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter Moss Side)


Gower, Raymond
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Temple, John M.


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Grimston, Sir Robert
Mills, Stratton
Thompson. Kenneth (Walton)


Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morgan, William
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Turner, Colin


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nabarro, Gerald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
Vane, W. M. F.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Vickers, Miss Joan


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Michael
Walder, David


Hay, John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Webster, David


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wise, A. R.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hobson, John
Partridge, E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, C. M,


Hollingworth, John
Peyton, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Woollam, John


Hopkins, Alan
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Worsley, Marcus


Hornby, R. P.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pitman, Sir James



Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pitt, Miss Edith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pott, Percivall
Mr. Whitelaw and


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Mr. Frank Pearson.


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)





NOES


Ainsley, William
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Benson, Sir George
Brockway, A. Former


Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)
Berkeley, Humphry
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Atkins, Humphrey
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Awbery, Stan
Blyton, William
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Baird, John
Boardman, H.
Chapman, Donald


Balniel, Lord
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Chataway, Christopher


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bowles, Frank
Cliffe, Michael


Bence, Cyril
Boyden, James
Collick, Percy







Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rankin, John


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Redhead, E. C.


Cropland, Anthony
Jeger, George
Reid, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


Darling, George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, William


Deer, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Short, Edward


Dempsey, James
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Diamond, John
Ledger, Ron
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, Norman
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, Arthur


Donnelly, Desmond
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Logan, David
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Loughlin, Charles
Snow, Julian


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McCann, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Albert
McInnes, James
Steele, Thomas


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Finch, Harold
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Storehouse, John


Fitch, Alan
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, William


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Swain, Thomas


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Swingler, Stephen


Forman, J. C.
Maginnis, John E.
Symonds, J. B.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tapsell, Peter


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gooch, E. G.
Mason, Roy
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Grey, Charles
Milne, Edward J.
Thornton. Kemsley, Sir Colin


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.
Timmons, John


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Morris, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Grimond, J.
Moyle, Arthur
Wade, Donald


Gunter, Ray
Mulley, Frederick
Wainwright, Edwin


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold
Warbey, William


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Watkins, Tudor


Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Weitzman, David


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Oram, A. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Owen, Will
Willey, Frederick


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hilton, A. V.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hocking, Philip N.
Parker, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Holt, Arthur
Paton, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Houghton, Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
Winterbottom, R. E.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hoy, James H.
Peart, Frederick
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Popplewell, Ernest
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, R. E.



Hunter, A. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Irvine, A. J. (Edge HIM)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Mr. Lawson.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Randall, Harry

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out, to"British" in line 6, stand part of the Clause:

The Committee divided: Ayes 275, Noes 196.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[9.40 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Aitken, W. T.
Berkeley, Humphry
Braine, Bernard


Allason, James
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Biffen, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Arbuthnot, John
Biggs-Davison, John
Brooman-White, R.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bingham, R. M.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Atkins, Humphrey
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


Barber, Anthony
Bishop, F. P.
Bryan, Paul


Barlow, Sir John
Black, Sir Cyril
Buck, Antony


Barter, John
Bossom, Clive
Bullard, Denys


Batsford, Brian
Bourne-Artort, A.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Box, Donald
Burden, F. A.


Bell, Ronald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Butcher, Sir Herbert




Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Warden)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pitman, Sir James


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hopkins, Alan
Pitt, Miss Edith


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hornby, R. P.
Pott, Percivall


Gary, Sir Robert
Howard. Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Channon, H. P. G.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cleaver, Leonard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jennings, J. C.
Ramsden, James


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rawlinson, Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rees, Hugh


Coulson, J, M.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rippon, Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Robson Brown, Sir William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kimball, Marcus
Roots, William


Cunningham, Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Curran, Charles
Lagden, Godfrey
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Ronald


Dance, James
Langford-Holt, J.
St. Clair, M.


Deedes, W. F.
Leather, E. H. C.
Scott-Hopkins, James


de Ferranti, Basil
Leburn, Gilmour
Seymour, Leslie


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Doughty, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, M.


du Cann, Edward
Lindsay, Martin
Shepherd, William


Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Gilbert
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Speir, Rupert


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
McAdden, Stephen
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
MacArthur, Ian
Stevens, Geoffrey


Farr, John
McLaren, Martin
Stodart, J. A.


Fell, Anthony
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Finlay, Graeme
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Talbot, John E.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Tapsell, Peter


Forrest, George
McMaster, Stanley R.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)


Freeth, Denzil
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Temple, John M.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gibson-Watt, David
Marshall, Douglas
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gilmour, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R-
Mills, Stratton
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Turner, Colin


Gresham Cooke, R.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Grimston, Sir Robert
Morgan, William
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, John
Vane, W. M. F.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nabarro, Gerald
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Neave, Airey
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nichols, Sir Harmar
Walder, David


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Walker, Peter


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Noble, Michael
Webster, David


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oakshotf, Sir Hendrie
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hay, John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wise, A. R.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Partridge, E.
Woodnutt, Mark


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Woollam, John


Hobson, John
Percival, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Hooking, Philip N.
Peyton, John
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Holland, Philip
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth



Hollingworth, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn




Pilkington, Sir Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.







NOES


Ainsley, William
Hamilton, William (west Fife)
Pavitt, Laurence


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Peart, Frederick


Awbery, Stan
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman


Baird, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Popplewell, Ernest


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hill, J (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.


Bence, Cyril
Hilton, A. V.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holt, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Randall, Harry


Blyton, William
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics. S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt, Hon. Douglas
Shinwell, Rt. Han. E.


Chapman, Donald
Jeger, George
Short, Edward


Cliffe, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cronin, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cullen, Mrs, Alice
Kelley, Richard
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Darling, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Snow, Julian


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger, Ron
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Steele, Thomas


Deer, George
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Delargy, Hugh
Logan, David
Stonehouse, John


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Stones, William


Diamond, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Dodds, Norman
McCann, John
Swingler, Stephen


Donnelly, Desmond
MacColl, James
Symonds, J. B.


Driberg, Tom
McInnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edelman, Maurice
McLeavy, Frank
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E,)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thornton, Ernest


Evans, Albert
Malialieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, John


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Wade, Donald


Finch, Harold
Manuel, A. C.
Wainwright, Edwin


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
Watkins, Tudor


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, David


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendeleon, J. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moody, A. S.




Morris, John
Willey, Frederick


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ginsburg, David
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Gooch, E. G.
Neal, Harold
Williams, W. T. (warringion)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Grey, Charles
Oram, A. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will
Wyatt, Woodrow


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Padley, W. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grimond, J.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Gunter, Ray
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hail, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paton, John
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. Lawson.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I move this Motion partly to discover the intentions of the Government and partly because we have been witnessing in the Committee most extraordinary scenes and developments.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am not prepared to accept that Motion, the more so because, on the Order Paper there is a Motion, which the Government will be moving in a few minutes' time, giving notice to suspend the proceedings under the Ten o'clock rule in order to


allow the proceedings of the Committee to continue. I cannot, therefore, accept the right hon. Member's Motion now.

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. You gave a reason for your Ruling, Sir William, and I wish to ask whether one Motion is related to the other, or does it mean that when the Motion relating to the Ten o'clock rule has been disposed of it would be in order for me to move to report Progress. I could not quite understand.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the House—not the Committee—wishes to divide, we must have a Division on the Motion relating to the Ten o'clock rule.

Mr. George Brown: On a related point of order, but not the same one, Sir William, may I say that my right hon. Friend moved a Motion which I understood you to say you refused to accept because you said that in seven minutes' time the Government were to move a different Motion. May I ask you what the relation is between these two Motions?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Seven minutes.

Mr. G. Brown: We may take the whole seven minutes if hon. Members opposite wish.
At this stage we wish to ascertain the intentions of the Government. That could be related to the Motion which they are to move in seven minutes' time. At that stage the Motion will be moved quite formally and, therefore, there will be no explanation vouchsafed to the House. My right hon. Friend claimed your leave to move his Motion on the ground that we have got into a quite extraordinary situation where the Government are no longer being supported by their majority.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Member is coming back to the original point of order. I declined to accept the Motion to report Progress and I must stick to that line.

Mr. Brown: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: I shall hear the right hon. Member by all means on a separate point of order, but please, not on this one, because I have already ruled on it.

Mr. Brown: I respect that, of course, Sir William, but what is the relation between—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Douglas Jay: It has nothing to do with hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Brown: What is the relation between a claim from this side of the Committee and the Government's intention to move a Motion? We are asking you, Sir William, to allow us to discover the Government's intentions.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not the Government's intentions which concern the Chair. The fact is that the House—we shall be the House in five minutes—will have the opportunity of deciding whether the Committee should continue to deal with this business. That has influenced me in deciding that I should not be right to accept the Motion to report Progress. I should like now to be allowed to call the next Amendment.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is rising to another point of order, he is by all means entitled to do so.

Mr. Fletcher: I rise to a point of order which, I think, is important in connection with our procedure. I hope that it will not be laid down as a reason for refusing to report Progress that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, in the Prime Minister's name, to suspend business at ten o'clock. May I remind you, Sir William, that one day last week, on an historic occasion, there was a Motion to report Progress which was accepted by the Chair when there was also a Motion on the Order Paper in the Prime Minister's name to suspend the rule. The Chairman nevertheless allowed the Motion to report Progress to be moved. Therefore, there may well be circumstances in which it is appropriate for the Chairman to accept such a Motion.

The Deputy-Chairman: On this occasion, as Chairman, I thought it not appropriate for me to accept a Motion to report Progress, and that remains my view. I should like to call the next Amendment.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: Is this a fresh point of order?

Mr. Fernyhough: If the Leader of the House had attempted to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) did—moved that we report Progress—would you have ruled that you could not accept that Motion?

The Deputy-Chairman: The proper answer to that would be that it is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Jay: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

The Deputy-Chairman: I want to be sure that the right hon. Gentleman is rising on a different point of order.

Mr. Jay: It is quite a separate and different point of order. Can you, Sir William, for the guidance and enlightenment of the Committee, inform us in which circumstances you will be prepared to accept a Motion to report Progress?

The Deputy-Chairman: A moment ago I used the word "hypothetical". This question, too, is hypothetical.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order. I wondered how it was that one of the Government Whips caught your eye, Sir William. Did you call him? When he rose to his feet the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) was raising a point of order. I wondered whether the fact that the Whip had risen to his feet gave him any priority, before he spoke, over a point of order which was being raised by another hon. Member.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is going back quite a few minutes. What happened on that occasion was that an

hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench claimed to move the Question, "That the Question be now put", and I accepted it.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Lipton: (seated and covered): On a point of order. I want to draw attention to this fact, which I think cannot he controverted. According to the Order Paper, the Motion to suspend the rule had to be taken at ten o'clock. It is quite clear to quite a number of us who were watching the time very carefully that when ten o'clock came that Motion was not, in fact, put. In these circumstances, I beg respectfully to suggest that the time had passed when such a Motion could be put, because it should have been put at ten o'clock and not at one minute past ten o'clock. If the Government spokesman missed the boat, that is not the fault of the Opposition.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): There is no question of the Government spokesman missing the boat. The onus is on the Chairman to vacate the Chair of the Committee and proceed to the Chair of the House at ten o'clock. I believe that I did so.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 194.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bishop, F. P.


Aitken, W. T.
Bell, Ronald
Black, Sir Cyril


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Frm)
Bossom, Clive


Arbuthnot, John
Berkeley, Humphry
Bourne-Arton, A.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Box, Donald


Atkins, Humphrey
Bidgood, John C.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.


Barber, Anthony
Biffen, John
Boyle, Sir Edward


Barlow, Sir John
Biggs Davison, John
Braine, Bernard


Barter, John
Bingham, R. M.
Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Batsford, Brian
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry




Brooman-White, R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, Sir James


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hobson, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bryan, Paul
Hocking, Philip N.
Pott, Percivall


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bullard, Denys
Hollingworth, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Prior, J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
Hopkins, Alan
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hornby, R. P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pym, Francis


Cambell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Quennelt, Miss J. M.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ramsden, James


Cary, Sir Robert
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rawlinson, Peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Chataway, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Hugh


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irving, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, David


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jennings, J. C.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rippon, Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Joseph, Sir Keith
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roots, William


Corfield, F. V.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Costain, A. P.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Coulson, Michael
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Ronald


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kitson, Timothy
St. Clair, M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Lagden, Godfrey
Scott-Hopkins, James


Critchley, Julian
Lancaster, Col. C G.
Seymour, Leslie


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Langford-Holt, J.
Sharples, Richard


Cunningham, Knox
Leather, E. H. C.
Shaw, M.


Curran, Charles
Leburn. Gilmour
Shepherd, William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir Jocelyn


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Deedes, W. F.
Lindsay, Martin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


de Ferranti, Basil
Line'ead, Sir Hugh
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lichfield, Capt. John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Doughty, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, Rupert


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walker H.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


du Cann, Edward
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Stevens, Geoffrey


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stodart, J. A.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
McAdden, Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Studholme, Sir Henry


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McLaren. Martin
Talbot, John E.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tapsell, Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, S[...]-Fitzroy (Bute &amp;N. Ayrs.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley R.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Fell, Anthony
Madden, Martin
Temple, John M.


Finlay, Graeme
Maginiss, John E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fisher, Nigel
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Forrest, George
Marshall, Douglas
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Neil
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Freeth, Denzil
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mawby, Ray
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gibson-watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Turner, Colin


Gilmour, Sir John
Mills, Stratton
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vane, W. M. F.


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gower, Raymond
Morrison. John
Vickers, Miss Joan


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Nabarro, Gerald
Walder, David


Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
Walker, Peter


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Webster, David


Grimston, Sir Robert
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gurden, Harold
Noble, Michael
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wise, A. R.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Woodhouse, C. M


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woollam, John


Hastings, Stephen
Partridge, E.
Worsley, Marcus


Hay, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)



Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, John
Mr. Whitelaw and


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Mr. Michael Hamilton.


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wytnenshawe)
Pike, Miss Mervyn








NOES


Ainsley, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pavitt, Laurence


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Peart, Frederick


Awbery, Slan
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman


Baird, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bence, Cyril
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holt, Arthur
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blyton, William
Hoy, James H.
Randall, Harry


Boardman, H.
Hughes, cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)


Brockway, A. Fermer
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Ross, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George
Short, Edward


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cliffe, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skeffington, Arthur


Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cronin, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Snow, Julian


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Sorensen, R. W.


Darling, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ledger, Ron
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Storehouse, John


Deer, George
Lewis, Arthur (west Ham, N.)
Stones, William


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Dempsey, James
Logan, David
Swain, Thomas


Diamond, John
Loughlin, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Symonds, J. B.


Donnelly, Desmond
McCann, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Taylor, John (west Lothian)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McInnes, James
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edelman, Maurice
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, Frank
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacMilan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Timmons, John


Evans, Albert
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wade, Donald


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wainwright, Edwin


Finch, Harold
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Warbey, William


Fitch, Alan
Manuel, A. C.
Watkins, Tudor


Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, R. J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Forman, J. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Milne, Edward J.
Willey, Frederick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Morris, John
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gooch, E. G.
Mulley, Frederick
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gordon walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Neal, Harold
Winterbottom, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Owen, Will



Grimond J.
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gunter, Ray
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, John
Mr. Sydney Irving.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

Again considered in Conanittee.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Donald Chapman) wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. Chapman: On a point of order. I wonder whether you can help me, Sir William. I moved the last Amendment and, as far as I could, I stayed here for the remainder of the day. You will recall that, just half an hour before one of the Whips moved the Closure, the Home Secretary made a speech in which he told hon. Members that he was not


intervening at that time in order to shorten the debate which, he said, could go on after he had sat down. He also parried interventions on the ground that, following his speech, hon. Members could make their own contributions.

The Deputy-Chairman: So long as the Home Secretary's speech was in order, which it must have been or it would have been interrupted by the Chair, it cannot be raised with me now as a point of order.

Mr. Chapman: I am not raising the speech, but seeking your guidance. May I continue my point of order?

The Deputy-Chairman: I should not be entitled to allow the hon. Member, under the guise of a point of order, to ask a question of another hon. Member of the House.

Mr. Chapman: No. I have no intention of doing that and I beg your pardon if I misled you, Sir William. I am asking you what is the position in which we find ourselves? Is it not the system of the House that if a Minister misleads hon. Members, perhaps unintentionally, we may move to report Progress or use some other device to find out just what the right hon. Gentleman meant?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is raising matters of opinion that can be spoken in debate, but cannot be raised as a point of order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I propose to call the next Amendment, No. 143, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). It will be in order to discuss with it the following Amendment. No. 144, in page 2, line 10, but only the first of the two Amendments—that is, No. 143—has been selected and it is only on the first that there may be a vote.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Diamond: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "British protected persons and".
The Committee is grateful to you, Sir William, for making perfectly clear that this is the Amendment which is being selected for debate, and possibly for voting upon, and that the other Amendment, as a matter of convenience, may be discussed at the same time.
I should perhaps first explain the effect of the Amendment. It is to leave out the words "British protected persons" from subsection (4). It has the effect of omitting them from the immigration control powers of the Bill. [Interruption.] I have no desire to interrupt hon. Members who wish to continue their discussion on the previous Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope that the Committee will maintain reasonable silence so that the hon. Member may propose his Amendment.

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to you. Sir William.
The purpose of the two Amendments is to exclude the reference in line 6. page 2, to "British protected persons" and thereby to make it clear that the control powers of the Bill shall not apply to such persons. If there is any doubt about the matter, the Amendment which is being discussed with the first Amendment removes that doubt by proposing that the following words should be added:
This part of this Act shall not apply to British protected persons.
I wish to deal shortly with the arguments in support of this proposal, because I know that many hon. Members on both sides are most anxious to come to the Question which will follow

this Amendment, namely, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I am anxious that words of mine should not be so wide or cover so many associated points that the Chair might consider that the matter had been fully discussed and therefore might not allow debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." A number of hon. Members on both sides have not had the opportunity to speak on many of the previous Amendments and I am sure—I can certainly speak for myself here—that they have many relevant and valid points that they wish to make on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
This is an important Amendment, and it deals with a class of persons which is quite separate and which requires careful definition of the kind which, I dare say, the Government can give but which I cannot give fully. British protected persons are not easily defined. All that can be said it that they are not necessarily British subjects. For the purposes of the Amendment, one can assume, by and large, that they are not British subjects in the ordinary sense of that word but are, by way of example, mostly people in the Protectorates of Bechuanaland, Swaziland, Basutoland and a few similar small areas.
The people in those areas are British protected persons because of treaty rights which have been negotiated. I wish to come back to the heart of the Bill and to remind hon. Members that the justification for the Bill is that it is a Bill, not to exclude, but merely to control. The justification for bringing in control at this time is that it is said we are threatened with excessive immigration. No one could maintain that we are threatened with excessive immigration from areas in which British protected persons reside. The figures relating to the three areas that I have mentioned show that they account for a total population of about 1 million. I do not know the total of British protected persons in the world, but I imagine that it is not substantially in excess of that figure. It therefore cannot be said that people in these areas represent a threat to this country.
If the total population of those areas were to come here, it would still not be


an enormous number. We do not know the figures accurately because, unfortunately, the Government, on many occasions, have denied the Committee accurate and relevant statistics about Commonwealth immigration. I can, therefore, only surmise that the immigration of British protected persons in the last few years has been on a very small scale. They have not been the cause of the social problems which are, admittedly, arising and which are not dealt with at all in the Bill. They have not been arriving in sufficient numbers to justify for one moment their inclusion in the Bill on the ground that we must now control the immigration of British protected persons.
Nor could it be said, in view of the total population of British protected persons to which I referred, that the Government need reserve powers, because if the whole of the total population of British protected persons came here, which is inconceivable, the number would be so small that it could not be alleged that we needed protection from them. Therefore, on those two legs of the e' araument, there is no reason to in- clude British protected persons in the Bill or to alter the status quo.
Having said tht there are no reasons for altering the status quo, let me give a few reasons for maintaining it. I suggest that there are three very substantial reasons for maintaining it. First. British protected persons are people with whom we have treaty obligations. They are not conquered people. In the old days, the rights of this country in relation to the Colonies derived mostly from the fact that the people in them had been conquered by this country and had to submit to whatever was offered to them. That is not the case with British Protectorates. They are places which have voluntarily entered into treaty agreements with the Government which extend back over very many years as a result of which they enjoy certain rights.
One of the rights which they have enjoyed, certainly a right enjoyed by all of them for at least sixty years—and a right which has been enjoyed for that length of time becomes a fundamental right—is the right to move freely to this country without being examined, without having to demonstrate their health

conditions, without having to show that they have a job offered to them here, without any of these conditions whatsoever, in the same way as a citizen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
That being the case, they having enjoyed these rights by treaty, it would not only be immoral for them to be excluded or subject to irritating and debasing controls, but it would be a wholly disgraceful, unilateral breach of an agreement. All my hon. Friends know that I am wholly against unilateral breaches of agreement. The Government would, therefore, have to justify usurping powers of that kind to people who are British-protected.
If there is anything proud about being British, it is having the word "protected" associated with it. I find it entirely acceptable that for good reasons certain people should rely on our protection and should wish to associate themselves in a friendly way and to exchange for good consideration British protection and the right to move freely in these islands. That is the first major argument against the inclusion of British protected persons under the powers of the Bill.
The second reason is the obvious one that, as far as I am aware, with negligible exceptions all British protected persons are coloured. It could not be said, therefore, that this was other than a restriction which goes exclusively against coloured persons. I am sure that the last thing the Government would want is for any part of the Bill to be seen to be in any sense a sort of colour bar.
The third reason is that the three Protectorates which I have mentioned are in South Africa and are looked at with great interest by the Government of South Africa. In fact, that Government have from time to time suggested that new arrangements might be made for the protection of these areas. The reason why we are talking about the Government of South Africa as a friendly State as opposed to a member of the Commonwealth is that we were not prepared to have South Africa in the Commonwealth as long as the colour-bar philosophy of apartheid continued. We have taken that attitude in the Commonwealth.
These three teritories are looked at by South Africa day after day. South Africa recognises that she has been excluded on the grounds of her colour-bar philosophy, and yet it is proposed to introduce in this Measure the very thing for which South Africa stands condemned. No greater arguments of mine than these are needed.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has moved one of two Amendments which are being taken together, but they would both have the same effect. They would protect British protected persons from the control provisions of Clause 2 and would give them the same right to enter this country as we are reserving for people who are native to this country or who were born here. In view of Divisions which took place at an earlier stage of the Bill, that would place British protected persons in a more favourable position than Commonwealth citizens.
The hon. Member, in his interesting and temperate speech, referred to three Protectorates only. Of course, his Amendments are not confined to those three Protectorates, which have approximately the population mentioned by the hon. Member of about 1 million. The Amendments would cover all the fifteen Protectorates and British protected States, which have a population altogether of about 14 million. Thus, the effect of the Amendments would be to give 14 million British protected persons a right of entry which several hundred million Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies other than our native people would not have.

Mr. S. Silverman: Instead of saying that it would give them that right, is it not more accurate to say that what we mean is that the Amendments would refrain from taking it away?

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton: That is a valid point and I fully accept it. The hon. Member for Gloucester has referred to the status of British protected persons only very briefly. I think it is right that in this context we should understand exactly what it is, especially in view of the comparison which I have made

with Commonwealth citizens. A British protected person is a person who was born in a British Protectorate or British protected State—there is a slight difference between the two—or whose father was born in one of those two types of territory. They are not British subjects or Commonwealth citizens. They receive our protection when travelling in foreign countries, and for that reason they travel on British passports issued in the States where they live. When in this country they are exempt from our restrictions on aliens but they do not have the rights and obligations of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies or, indeed, of Commonwealth citizens. For example, they do not have the voting rights of British citizens, neither do they have the obligation of military service.
Surely, the position we have to face on this Amendment is this, that the Committee having decided not to exempt in the first place all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies from the provisions of Clause 2, by including them in this Clause I. and having decided, secondly, not to exempt all citizens of the independent countries of the Commonwealth in the same way, it would be quite illogical to exempt British protected persons who are not Commonwealth citizens or British subjects at all.

Mr. Diamond: It would help us enormously to consider his argument if the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has given us figures of the total population, would now give us figures of immigration of British protected persons in the last few years and months.

Mr. Renton: I think I could get such figures, but I have not got them handy at the present moment. [HON. MEMBERS:"Why not?"] Surely the important point on this Amendment is to know the total number of people the Amendment would cover, and that figure I have given. I will concede the point the hon. Member made, that emigration from those territories—I have a list of them in front of me—as one can tell from a glance at the list, has not been on a very large scale. I grant him that point.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman be a little more precise and give us the exact figure?
That is obviously highly relevant, because the hon. and learned Gentleman has made the point that if this Amendment were to be carried we should be leaving millions of people in possession of the right to come here-—14 million of them. We, therefore, must surely have the right to assess how serious, how practical, a risk this is. It is no good saying 14 million might come here if nobody ever does.

Mr. Renton: With great respect, I should have thought that it was much more important to decide this on the basis of principle and reason than on the basis of arithmetic.

Mr. Silverman: Why introduce arithmetic then?

Mr. Renton: We are talking not of the Bill as a whole, not of the 600 million British subjects throughout the world as a whole. We are speaking of 14 million. I have conceded that only a small proportion of those have so far come to this country. In this subject, I quite agree, illogicalities arise, as we know perfectly well from the last debate. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Surely, however, this is a perfectly clear issue. It would not be right to give a special right of entry—

Mr. Fletcher: To take it away.

Mr. Renton: —to take away a special right of entry which, under the Bill, we are preserving for people who were born in this country, or who are in any other way, or various other ways, native to it, when we are saying that citizens of independent countries of the Commonwealth and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who do not belong here, in the sense which has already been explained in an earlier debate, are not to have that right.
Candidly, the Committee must realise that it would be fantastic for us to say that the people of these territories should have the right of entry under Clause 1—we are talking of Clause 1 only—when the people of, for example, Jamaica, Canada, Australia and so on are not to have that right. Although I have endeavoured to treat the Committee with the very greatest courtesy, I should have thought that, as a matter of principle, that is scarcely arguable.

Mr. James Griffiths: The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned that he has a list of fourteen territories. The term "British protected person" arises out of the fact that these people live in a British protected territory, and, therefore, we are their protectors and they come under our protection by treaty rights. In each case there is a treaty. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied himself that the provisions of the Bill do not undermine the provisions of those treaties? This is a very important question for him. There are responsible people in those territories with which the United Kingdom has treaty obligations, not perhaps the people who signed those treaties but their successors. Suppose they say that if the House of Commons passes this Bill we shall so have altered the relationship between ourselves and themselves that they will now terminate the treaties? Have the Colonial Office and the Law Officers been consulted about this point? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman quite sure that by this provision we are not doing something which might nullify such treaties?

Mr. A. Lewis: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman go one step further and say whether he has discussed this matter with the fourteen or fifteen trustee territories to which he has referred? Apart from whether or not it is legally possible, I should like to know whether he or the Department have discussed it with the countries concerned.

Mr. John Strachey: Give us a list of the territories.

Mr. Renton: Perhaps I might first deal with the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). The Colonial Secretary and the Attorney-General have, of course, been consulted on this point, as on all other points in the Bill. The Bill has been drafted in the fullest consultation with them. On the specific question of whether there is any undermining of the treaties, I understand that there is none whatever—

Mr. J. Griffiths: In none of these cases?

Mr. Renton: Under these treaties we guaranteed to protect the territories concerned. There is a difference between


the two cases—a British Protectorate and a British protected State. The difference is that the United Kingdom Government is not responsible for the internal affairs of a British protected State, whereas it generally is responsible for the internal affairs of a Protectorate; but we have under the treaties granted protection also to the subjects of many of those States as they move about the world, and that is why they have British passports. There is nothing in any of the treaties which guarantees a right of entry to this country. It is hardly surprising, because in the days when the treaties were entered into between the parties concerned the right of entry was taken for granted. There is no danger of the treaties having been undermined.

Mr. J. Griffiths: This is very important. I call to mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I understand him to say now—and it is quite right, for I charge my memory as a former Colonial Secretary—that British protected persons carry passports. If the Bill does not take the passport away from them, how can we stop them from using that passport? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman sure that all the implications of this matter have been considered fully? Is not this a time when we might well ask to report Progress so that the Colonial Secretary and the Attorney-General might attend the debate? This is a most important matter and it might well have serious consequences.

Mr. Renton: The Bill does not take anybody's British passport away. It makes a distinction between a United Kingdom passport—and that passport is defined in subsection (3)—and other types of British passport held by citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies or, as the case might be, by the citizens of British protected States. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no deprivation of passport rights. As to consultation, as has already been said, there has been consultation through the Colonial Office, though the Commonwealth Relations Office enters into the question in respect of the three protected States which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland.

Mrs. Eirene White: Not now.

Mr. Renton: I am grateful for the correction. At any rate, both the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office invited comments on the proposals in the Bill, and, therefore, there has been consultation in the usual way. Was this the point the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) had in mind?

Mr. A. Lewis: The point was whether discussion had taken place with all the fifteen territories. The hon. and learned Member mentioned three.

Mr. Renton: It follows from what I said that our intentions had been made known to each of the territories for which the Colonial Office is responsible and with which the Commonwealth Relations Office makes contact, and there has been discussion.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On the question of passports, I see that the Clause applies to
…any Commonwealth citizen not being…a person who holds a United Kingdom passport…
and when we give a United Kingdom passport under the subsection to which the hon. and learned Member has referred we find that it means
…a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom, not being a passport so issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom.
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman let us know which Government issues the passport for this protected citizen, and if it issues that passport
…on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom
what is the part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom on behalf of which the passport is issued? I call the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the word "Government."

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Renton: United Kingdom passports can be issued by various people and in various ways. I hope I am not out of order on this, Sir Samuel, but I have been drawn into this explanation. Unless I am ruled out of order, I shall attempt to answer. The most familiar case is a United Kingdom passport


issued by the Foreign Office in the United Kingdom. Another case is a United Kingdom passport issued to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who happens to be resident abroad—he may have lost his passport, for example—and that may be issued by a consulate. Then we have passports issued by High Commissioners in independent Commonwealth countries on behalf of the United Kingdom. We also have what could broadly speaking be called Colonial United Kingdom passports issued by the Government of a Colony, not on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, but on behalf of the Government of the Colony. Passports are issued to the people of Protectorates by the British representative in the Protectorate, but they are not passports issued on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom in the usual way.

Mr. Mitchison: I will try to get this matter a little clearer. We now agree that the passport is issued by the Government of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that it is issued on behalf of, let us say, the Government of Bechuanaland. What is the Government of Bechuanaland for this purpose? How can it authorise the issue of a passport when all its relations with foreign Powers are in the hands of Her Majesty's Government? It is stretching matters beyond any ordinary sense, and I should have thought any sound law, to suggest that a passport issued to the subject of a Protectorate is issued by the United Kingdom on behalf of the Government of the Protectorate, which is what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. Can he explain?

Mr. Renton: The position is as I have stated it. The only thing which I need add for clarification is that in a British Protectorate the passport is issued by the British representative but he issues it on behalf of the Government of the Protectorate.

Mr. Fletcher: We have had a very courteous but most unsatisfactory speech from the Minister of State. He has not attempted to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond).

Mr. Diamond: On a point of order. I am completely confused. Has the Minister of State sat down to allow an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), or does he think that he has made a speech in answer to the debate?

Mr. Renton: I have indeed made my speech in answer to the debate and I have made it at very considerable length.

Mr. Fletcher: I was under the impression that the Minister of State had finished. I can understand the surprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, because the Minister of State has not attempted to answer either the case he made or that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr J. Griffiths). May I, therefore, try to repeat the argument?
I hope that, before we finish, we shall either have the Home Secretary, or the Attorney-General, or the Colonial Secretary, or the Leader of the House, or all of them, present. I hope that one of the Government Whips will let the obvious desire of the Committee be known, because this is a matter of first-class importance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly have pointed out.
The issue is: should British protected persons be included in the Bill? If it is logical, as the Minister of State suggested, that they should be included, it is equally logical that they should be excluded. The whole Bill is, in any case, illogical. British protected persons are mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum as being a special class. We have to exclude them or include them. There is no logic in the Bill, but serious questions of principle are involved.
It is conceded by everyone that they are in a category by themselves. There are 14 million of them. They are not in the same position as British subjects living in Canada or Australia, nor are they in the same position as people living in the Republic of Ireland or in Ghana or any other self-governing country with which this Bill is concerned. Nor are they in the same position as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
The special, distinctive characteristic of British protected persons, as I understand the position, is that they are not exactly aliens but are in a class by themselves. They live in territories such as Swaziland, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, the Solomon Islands, and Nyasaland.

Mr. J. Griffiths: And parts of Kenya.

Mr. Fletcher: They are not descendants of people who went out from this country as emigrants.
I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has just returned to the Committee. I should point out, for his benefit, that we are discussing the distinctive characteristic of British protected persons and considering whether they should be included or excluded from the Bill. They are admittedly in a class by themselves. They are not people whose ancestors went out from this country as colonists. Nor were they conquered. They are living in territories which were afforded certain protection by Britain under treaties between their chiefs and the Sovereign. The chiefs retained certain rights and their people were given the status of British protected persons.
For generations they have had the right to come here under those treaties, because their right to do so without restriction or control was derived not from a law of the Imperial Parliament but from the treaties. I suggest that the Government are, therefore, making a unilateral abrogation of treaties, because the rights of these people derived from a time when, under the common law, anybody could come to this country—not only British subjects and British protected persons but all aliens as well. That had been the common law of the country for centuries.
The only exception to that rule was the fact that the Jews were expelled in the reign of Edward I and were not readmitted to this country until the time of Oliver Cromwell. With that exception for centuries, from time immemorial, everybody has had the inalienable right to come to this country and, therefore, when these treaties were made it was implicit, if not explicit, in them—I do not have the texts of the treaties with me—that all British protected persons had the right to come to this country.
I concede that this Imperial Parliament has the right to legislate for subordinate legislatures, for the Colonies, and has the right to make laws for the citizens of Australia and Canada and other self-governing Dominions, but I very much doubt whether it has the right by legislation to abrogate rights which are derived from treaty obligations, and that is what the Government are doing in this case. The Minister conceded that there was no consultation with those concerned.

Mr. John Hobson: I find it very difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), and I should be much obliged if he would enlighten the Committee and explain how, if entry to this country was free for all persons, including aliens, it could have been an implied term of any treaty that a protected person could come to this country. Can the hon. Member name one treaty with any protected State which contains any clause giving the right of access to this country for a protected person?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, I certainly can. It involves reminding the Committee of what was the position about the right of entry to this country. Prior to 1914, anybody could come to this country, including aliens. In 1914, there were exceptions with aliens and those exceptions were made the subject of the Aliens Act which is a temporary Act and subject to renewal annually under the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. British protected persons are not covered by that Act. Therefore, both before and since 1914, British protected persons have had the same rights as British subjects in the Dominions and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I contend, therefore, that not only by treaty, but by prescription and by common law, British protected persons have had the absolute right to come to this country which cannot be taken from them by this Imperial Parliament.
Secondly, what is the necessity for this provision? These British protected persons are in a class by themselves. The Minister of State has conceded that no practical problem arises. We are not threatened by a great invasion of


people from Swaziland and Bechuanaland. Even if there were, which I deny, a case for control of immigrants from Jamaica or Ireland or Pakistan, it has never been suggested that we are in danger of a great influx of British protected persons from Nyasaland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland.
I doubt whether they come here much at all. I have studied the Annual Abstract of Statistics, and I should have thought that the number of British protected persons likely to come here was minimal. I hope that before we conclude the debate we can have some figures telling us how many British protected persons came to this country in, say, 1958, 1959, 1960 and the 11½months of 1961 which have expired. It is my impression that we are discussing a minimal problem. The case that it is necessary to keep out British protected persons because we should otherwise be flooded with them and because they would increase the housing shortage or produce social problems has not been made. There is no problem of that kind, and for the Minister of State to say that we must exclude these people as a matter of logic or necessity seems to me to be completely ridiculous.
My argument is that the case for excluding these people cannot be justified in reason, or on practical or logical grounds. Moreover, it is objectionable and offensive, because it is contrary to the treaty rights under which these people have established claims. It is completely monstrous for the Government to resist the Amendment.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: At one time and another I have had a good deal to do with these protected persons in my constituency. Most appear to have been born in Aden. They come to this country as Lascar seamen, and sometimes—because they are not taken on for another voyage, or for some other reason—they stay in this country. As a class of person they are very important in our shipping life, and in the last thirty years they have increased in numbers, but not to any very great extent as residents.
Surely the hon. and learned Member has some statistics which he can give us about the problem. I imagine that the

Shipping Federation could supply him with a pretty good estimate of the number actually employed in British ships. I am riow dealing with the limited group with whom I have had some connections in the course of my thirty-five years' association with a great commercial seaport. They come to me because of difficulties that have arisen about their employment. All those I have come across have been Mohammedans, who have been receiving advice, as a rule, from the religious head of the local Muslim mosque, and they have all been exceedingly proud of being British protected persons.
I understand that most of them come from small territories with which we have established certain treaty rights, which give them, at the moment, certainly, a privileged position as compared with persons in the same sort of employment who have come from foreign territories. They are always particularly anxious to assure me that they have no connection with China. I do not know that anyone would accuse them of having had such a connection, but they are always most emphatic in their statements that they are British protected persons.
There was a treaty on which their protection was based. It was not made with the British resident, because there was no British resident there at the time. It was made with the chief of the area—not necessarily a king, but some persons of authority who entered into an arrangement with us. I do not regard consultations with the British resident in one of these territories as providing a sufficient basis on which to set up some new arrangement. I know that there was a famous occasion when the first Lord Birkenhead, speaking on behalf of the British South Africa Company—before he was anything higher in the social world than "Galloper" Smith—had to plead the case of some people with whom Cecil Rhodes had made an arrangement in Africa. The members of the tribe found that their lands had been disposed of by the chief to Mr. Rhodes.
In opening the case, Mr.F. E. Smith said, "These people are so primitive that they do not understand the private ownership of land. They objected to the fact that, without  them,


their tribal lands had been disposed of." This is exactly the kind of difficulty one gets presented with when one embarks upon a hard-hearted fascist outlook on life. It is not enough to say to people who are in treaty relationships with this country, "This Imperial Parliament will dispose of them. We shall consult the British resident and on that we shall base a policy." A number of these people reside in my constituency. I know them as peaceable, law-abiding citizens who from time to time get into grave difficulties with the Shipping Federation or the National Union of Seamen.
I am very distressed about the lack of information which is available to us tonight. I am quite certain that if inquiries were made in South Shields a very good estimate of the number of British protected persons living in that borough could be obtained. The Minister of State reminded us that they are not entitled to be on the voting lists, but a number of other Lascar seamen are on the voting lists because they are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. When the electoral officer goes round trying to collect names he has to find which of these people are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—their names go on the list—and which are British protected persons, for their names do not go on the list. Surely there must be something which the hon. and learned Gentleman can tell us about the estimated number of these people in this country and what occupations they follow. I have never met or had correspondence about any one of them who was not a Lascar, but I represent a seaport where during the last sixty years or so a great deal of the trade of the port has been built up on the employment of Lascar seamen.
I cannot think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department is so ignorant as to the extent of this problem. We have just had a census. Every one of these persons has been recorded in that census. It was not done this time, but I assume that in future when a census is taken the Minister in charge of the census could give instructions that the number of British protected persons found when the census is being taken shall be separately enumerated so that the total can be given if any question

about these people arises again. I have not heard anything from the hon. and learned Gentleman this evening which enables me to feel that any serious thought has been given to these people, to the part they play in the life of the community, to their share in the shipping trade. The Committee should not pass from this Amendment without getting that information from the Government.

Mrs. White: I should like to turn to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison—the definition of Government. Subsection (3), to which he drew attention, refers to passports
issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom.
A number of territories are still depedent territories without responsible Government. The only passports issued on their behalf are issued on behalf of the Government in the United Kingdom. It is an extension of the Government in the United Kingdom.
For example, what is meant by the Government of Swaziland? There is no Government of Swaziland other than the Government of the United Kingdom. In course of time no doubt there will be responsible self-government in Swaziland, but at the moment we are only discussing a constitution and the possibility of elections. I fail to understand what is meant by "the Government of Swaziland" in this connection. That Government is under the direction of the High Commissioner who, incidentally, is also our ambassador to the Republic of South Africa; he is in Swaziland with executive power. I fail to see how there is a Government in Swaziland other than Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Any action taken in Swaziland is taken on the full responsibility of Her Majesty's Government
That is not necessarily true of all Protectorates. Certain territories will obtain independence. Uganda is on its way to independence, and when it obtains independence and reaches political maturity presumably it will relinquish its protected status and will no longer be included in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). It will then be independent and in the same category


as other independent members of the Commonwealth. But until that point is reached and it has full and responsible self-government, how can the Minister argue that passports are issued other than by the Government of the United Kingdom?
If the Paramount Chief in Swaziland decided that from 1st January he would issue passports he would find that he has no authority to do it. The authority for issuing those passports rests with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. They are not issued on behalf of another Government, because no such Government exists which could be the issuing authority. We are getting into difficulties here.
What consultation has there been with Her Majesty the Queen of Tonga? I understand that Tonga is a protected State. What consultation has there been with the Ruler of Kuwait, which is also a protected State? It seems to me that the question of consultation is important and that it is not enough to be told, "Of course there has been consultation with the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office". There should be direct consultation with the Rulers of protected States. I think that we should be assured that this consultation has taken place. Also we should be told what were the views of the Rulers of these protected States. Perhaps we might be enlightened about the status of Zanzibar.

Mr. A. Lewis: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Minister did not say that consultations had taken place. He said that they were informed and advised of the Government's intentions.

11.15 p.m.

Mrs. White: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps I was giving the Government too much credit for their diplomacy in these matters. I was emphasising that there are Heads of protected States, and that the least we should expect is that there has been adequate consultation, and not that they have merely been given information, because, whatever one may say about the lack of government in certain areas, there are Heads of States in others.
It is an interesting matter of law as to what precisely are the differences of

entitlement to consultation between the Head of a protected State and the persons in Protectorates, where I contend that there is normally no Government in the full sense of the word. If we contend that there is a Government on whose behalf we are issuing these passports, what about Barotseland? Are we issuing passports on behalf of Barotseland? It does not seem to make much sense.
Before we lightly dispose of these 14 million persons, we should have much greater clarification on these matters because we cannot brush them aside. It is not only a question of one's rights, but of our sense of history, and in dealing with a matter of this kind the Committee has a right to pay regard to the differences in historical standing. To some hon. Gentlemen opposite this may seem of little consequence, but to the people in these different territories their history and their relationship to Her Majesty's Government matter very much. They remember their history, even if we do not. It is part of their background, their legend, and their life how their relationship to Her Majesty's Government came into being, the conditions which they thought were attached to it, and so on.
It would be lamentable if we brushed aside the whole context of the bringing into being of these treaty relationships, the whole international import in law of the different status of the different types of protected persons, and so on, without a much more detailed account of the position than we have hitherto had from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was right to remind the Committee that the numbers were very much larger than had been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. My hon. Friend concentrated on the three Protectorates within the Union of South Africa, but there are many others—. Nyasaland, Uganda, Northern Rhodesia, II am not sure about Sarawak, and various other places. Their history and their status matter to them, and I do not think that we can brush aside in this cursory way our past dealings with people, some of whom have Heads of State who ought to have been consulted,


and others who, I repeat, have no Government in the sense of the word in subsection (3).
This point about protected persons is extremely interesting. It has been one of the glories of Britain that we have had a protected relationship with these people. Should we, therefore, just cast it aside and pretend that it does not matter that we will just lump them together as they happen to come along and say to them, "We are keeping everybody out, so of course we will keep you out too"?
That seems to be the attitude of the Government, and it is not good enough. People have put their trust in us. Some of them have the most astonishing sentiments about their personal relationship to Queen Victoria. This feeling still exists, and I think that we should be doing damage to these people psychologically if we brushed it aside.
I do not think that the practical effect of the Amendment will be very great. I think that the number of persons concerned is minimal. The number of people who come from the other territories I have mentioned, with the possible exception of Uganda—those who settle and work here—must be very small indeed. I realise that students from those countries come here, but can anyone say that the number who come from, say, Fiji is sufficient to shake the British economy or our social system?
From the practical point of view, it does not make a great deal of difference one way or the other. But from the point of view of history—and I should have thought, of law—this is an extremely important matter with which we should deal thoroughly before parting with the Amendment.

Mr. James MacColl: Hon. Members may say what they like about the Minister of State, but one thing those of us who know him well can always rely on is that anything in his brief is carefully mastered and is very painstakingly told to the Committee. One can be quite sure that if there is nothing in his brief to give us any idea of the size of the problem or the history of the background to it, then nothing is known about it. Thus the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks did not

astonish me—unlike some of my hon. Friends who have expressed surprise—because his approach was what I expected.
The whole trouble is that the Government have included British protected persons in the Bill without any consideration of the historical or practical implications. It has been done without any knowledge of the size of the problem and without any real attempt to find out the views of the people concerned. In fact, the Government have made no attempt whatever to consult anyone. They have, as in other respects, simply told the people who are affected by these proposals what the Government intend to do. They have told them that that is the decision. The Home Secretary told the Committee earlier that he is going to get his Bill, come what may. He does not care whether it is illogical or indefensible. He will get it through without any argument or consultation.
In precisely the same way, the Government have made it clear to these territories and the people who represent them that, whatever they think about it, the Bill will go through. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) intervened, as he so often does, to rescue the Government when they get bogged down on a legal point and attempted to challenge the suggestion that this involved treaty obligations. The hon. and learned Gentleman wondered how one could say that there was a treaty obligation when, at the time the treaty was made, everyone had those rights. I do not know if the hon. and learned Gentleman said exactly that and, if he did not, I hope that he will help us to clear our minds on the subject. In any case, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman can be regarded as right politically or morally. It is probably true that when Sir Harry Johnson—or whoever it was—negotiated with the Kabaka on the treaty obligations in the Protectorate for the Buganda people, the Kabaka did not sit back before raising his pen and ask, "By the way, what are to be our rights to come to London whenever we want to visit the Queen?"
It would not have occurred to him to ask that at that time because, in


those backward, uncivilised days, anyone could come to this country and exercise this privilege. It was, therefore, understood that behind these discussions there existed the right of free entry into Britain and the right to stay here. That is a right which should not be abrogated without very strong reasons. There should be extremely weighty reasons for breaking what was an understanding implicit in the situation at the time the treaties were made.
When they signed those treaties, these people were surrendering for ever to the protecting party their rights to control their foreign policy, the administration of their native laws, and so on. They could not turn back at a later stage and say, "We regret we have done it." Therefore, in all morality, if on the other hand the protected people were surrendering their rights for ever, equally it should be honourable for the protecting Power to say, "We will not in any way reduce the rights and privileges which the protected people had at the time they made the treaty."
At the time of the discussions about the federal franchise in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, one of the problems which had to be looked at was the status of protected people and their power to vote in the Federation. It was discovered that quite a number of people who could have become territorial citizens refused to do so and wanted to keep their protected status. It may seem bizarre and strange to my hon. Friends, who have seen the cynical and almost brutal way in which the Government are brushing aside these rights without regard, consultation or anything else.
At the time, those people attached importance to the bond of the British Government and people. They said to themselves, "We would rather trust our protected rights under our treaty than surrender those rights in order to have the status of citizens in the territory". So strong was that emotional, sentimental feeling, whatever one calls it, that it was necessary to make special provision for them to have the right to vote in their own country.
I am not supporting that view or saying that they were wise to take it. I simply draw attention to it as a prac

tical illustration of the validity of their choice of status as British protected persons and the trust it gave people that, once they had the rights and status of protected people under a treaty, they need not fear that their rights would be whittled away. Is it not shocking that we should now be considering going back on all that for no real reason?
It is clear from everything which has been said, by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and others, in this debate that from the point of view of the weight of the problem, it does not exist. There are no hordes of protected people wanting to come and make noises in our streets or houses, cause trouble, take our jobs or do anything of that sort. The Amendment would not make any difference significantly to the number of people coming into the country. We can know that, because had it been different we would have been told. Therefore, we can assume without doubt that this is a tiny problem in quantity. Therefore, to avoid that tiny, remote and hypothetical position arising at some time, without serious thought to its implications, the Government are asking us to take away this privilege which is attached to a British protected person.
Anybody, on either side of the Committee, who cares for the traditions and privileges and the great historical rights which have grown up. in the Commonwealth, and which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), should not let these things pass. I hope that the Committee, from all sides, will join in rejecting the Government's proposal by moving British protected persons out of the scope of the Clause.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) who preceded him have tried to educate the Minister of State in some of our Colonial history, and I am very glad to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Front Bench, because it is quite clear that in this matter the Home Office has no sense of the kind of obligations which this country has to the protected


persons in these various territories in different parts of the world.
Indeed, the provision in the Clause which we are seeking to amend is further proof of how little the present Government really care about the new Commonwealth which is emerging from the old Empire. So long as it was an empire the party opposite cared a good deal about it, and very enthusiastically moved millions of people from Africa across to the Caribbean and then back to Africa again, and very cheerfully suspended constitutions and imposed this, that and the other thing on various territories of the Colonial Empire. Now that these things are changing the Home Office seems willing to throw aside all these pasterns of obligations which have grown up over the years, and to do so without any sort of sense of the kind of thing it is really doing.
If the Minister of State knew anything about the protected persons whom we are discussing he would, for instance, have known that an infinitesimal proportion of them will ever have the chance to come to this country, but that very many of them regard their right to come freely to this country as one of the most priceless privileges to have arisen out of their relations with this country and its protection.

Mr. Renton: On a question of knowledge, perhaps I may remind the hon. Member that his remarks about the Colonial Empire are quite irrelevant because these people are not and never were British subjects, nor were those Protectorates part of the Empire.

Mr. Thomson: It is precisely this kind of thing we are trying to get across to the Minister of State. What he says may be perfectly true from the purely legalistic Home Office point of view, but not from the point of view of others in this country, and of many of his hon. Friends behind him, who have had an interest in Commonwealth and Colonial affairs and who have always felt their obligations to the Colonial Territories included obligations towards protected persons in the Protectorates.

Mr. Tapsell: I must say that I was surprised to hear the Minister of State apparently imply that countries like Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia have never been part of the British Empire.

Mr. Thomson: Well, I can, perhaps, leave that part of the Minister of State's education in these matters to some of his hon. Friends behind him, and I hope that during the debate in the hours which lie ahead of us they will continue it. There is no knowing what sort of progress we may make with the Minister of State, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes said, we all know that in other Home Office matters the Minister of State is a conscientious Minister who applies himself to anything which concerns the Home Office. Clearly, however, no one in the Home Office seems to have discovered what sort of rôle British protected persons and the Protectorates have developed in our Colonial history.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies sitting beside the Minister of State will tell him that the Colonial Secretary has just returned from a visit to Central and East Africa and that he has spent a good deal of time in various Protectorates talking to various British protected persons of the category we are discussing, including some distinguished British protected persons like Dr. Hastings Banda. The Colonial Secretary has just done a very good job in Nyasaland, trying to create a renewed sense of good will among British protected persons in that territory towards this country—a very difficult task, considering what some of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in the Colonial Office and in the Government did in the years immediately gone by.
What has happened in Nyasaland? British protected persons there have a very strong sense of grievance, because in the Central African Federation they find that their freedom of movement to other parts of the Federation—to Southern Rhodesia, for instance—is subject to arbitrary prohibition by the Government of Southern Rhodesia. This is a matter which seem to them a glaring injustice.
But what are the Government proposing to do in this provision? They are proposing to apply the same sort of arbitrary prohibitions on the movement of British protected persons to this country as the Southern Rhodesia Government have been doing in respect of the citizens of Nyasaland within the Central African Federation.


One of my hon. Friends has reminded the Committee of the sense of history that the citizens of Nyasaland have in these matters. I well remember when the original Federation Bill was being passed through the House helping with some of my hon. Friends to deliver a petition on behalf of the British protected persons of Nyasaland against the imposition of federation. One of our difficulties in handling the petition was that it was made not to Her Majesty's Government but to Her Majesty herself. That was done because the people of Nyasaland still felt the very strong sense of having entered into a direct treaty with Queen Victoria, and they could not understand how a group of politicians in Britain, forming the British Government, could abrogate that honourable treaty freely entered into by people in Nyasaland with the Queen of the United Kingdom. I am not attempting to support the point of view which was expressed there, but I put it before the Committee as an indication of the very strong sense of historical connection that there is between those British protected persons and this country which is being arbitrarily ruptured, without consultation, by the provisions of the Bill.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the situation in the High Commission Territories around the Republic of South Africa. In this country and in the House of Commons, we are particularly conscious now that our behaviour towards the British protected persons in these High Commission Territories will be the test of our sincerity as the centre of a multi-racial Commonwealth. It is now a commonplace that these High Commission Territories are a shop window for the kind of democracy that we stand for as against the policy of apartheid in the Republic of South Africa. But what are we to say if the British Government put prohibitions on the movement of British protected persons from these High Commission Territories on a more considerable scale than exists between the High Commission Territories and the Republic of South Africa?
This is the kind of thing that the Government are doing with this provision. In terms of controlling i a dangerous quantity of immigration into

this country, there can be no question at all, as my hon. Friends have said, that the entry of large numbers of British protected persons presents any danger to our housing situation, our economy or anything else. It seems to me that if ever there was a case for making exceptions from the provisions of this thoroughly disreputable Bill, it would be in the case of British protected persons.
The lack of sense of feeling for the relationship that exists between British protected persons and this country is indicated in the terms of Clause 1 (4) of the Bill where British protected persons are lumped together with citizens of the Republic of Ireland. In other words, these British protected persons, who have this unusual history behind them, this history of voluntarily entering into a free treaty relationship with this country, of voluntarily seeking the protection of the British Crown, are lumped together in a subsection with a larger group of citizens of a country which voluntarily withdrew itself from the protection of the British Crown.
It seems to me an insulting method of dealing with this matter, but it is no more insulting than the way the Minister of State has dealt with the arguments put forward on this point from this side of the Committee, and I hope that before we finish with the matter we shall have a much more adequate answer from the Minister of State than we have had so far.

Mr. Harold Davies: I sincerely hope that the Minister will at least make this concession. It is rather tragic that protected persons are thrown in like this. I even doubt whether the drafting of the Clause is logical. I know that this is a narrow point, but I would say that the hypocrisy involved here is one of the tragedies of the situation. It is not long since charts and diagrams were sent to the schools to illustrate the glories of the Elizabethan era and tribute was paid at the Coronation to the great Commonwealth. At the General Election the Union Jack was displayed on the table at Tory meetings while speakers extolled the virtue of the Empire and the Colonies.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going far beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Davies: I guessed that I should be out of order, but I thought that I should make the point by way of illustration that all that was merely a sprat to catch a vote and was not a genuine feeling for the spiritual meaning of the Commonwealth and of the people in it.
I gather from Halsbury's Laws of England that a British protected person is, first, any member of a class of persons declared by Order in Council made in relation to any protected State, any mandated territory, or a trust territory to be British protected. Such persons are British protected persons by virtue of their connection with the Protectorate or territory. They are not aliens and they are not British subjects. They become so by birth, naturalisation or annexation.
When on 1st January, 1949, we dealt with a Measure in the House we were told that any person who was or was deemed to have been a British subject before 1st January, 1949, became on that date a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and so remained a British subject if he was born within the territory comprised on 1st January, 1949, in the United Kingdom and Colonies, if he was naturalised or was deemed to be naturalised in the United Kingdom or Colonies, or he became a British subject by annexation on 1st January, 1949, of the territory. There have been examples of annexation since the last war in the case of Christmas Island, which was taken over from Australia, and an area under the control of New Zealand, taken over for test purposes.
Finally, there are the British persons born in one of the Protectorates. This is where we shall have difficulty later on, and it is the duty of Parliament to have a forward look. I must use an illustration without, I hope, getting out of order. Under the Treaty of Rome a court of justice can deem that if a job is not advertised and not filled in Britain within three weeks, anybody from within the Common Market area, in the event of our joining the Common Market, can take it up.

The Chairman: Order. That is not in order on the Amendment.

Mr. Davies: A ship is part of a territory. Under navigational law a tramp steamer can be regarded as part of Great Britain. I suggest that I am far from

being out of order. This is exactly relevant to the Amendment, and the bunch of muddled mavericks on the benches opposite have not even considered this. What will happen if there are jobs to be filled on a British tramp steamer, which is considered to be British territory? I have moved around the high seas. It is protected persons such as Lascars who have helped to make the name of tramp shipping. If certain jobs on British tramp steamers were not filled, the Court of Justice could, if it wanted to be awkward, deem that the jobs be filled by people living within the Common Market—Germans and Italians.

11.45 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going far beyond the Amendment. We are not in the Common Market yet. The hon. Member must not anticipate that state of affairs.

Mr. Davies: Sir Gordon, I knew that it would be difficult, but it is relevant. It exposes an angle of this Bill which has been hidden. I should like the Government to answer, because I am sure that they are rushing us into the Common Market. They have studied the Treaty of Rome. Where will protected persons serving on tramp steamers now stand in relation to the findings of the Court of Justice?

The Chairman: Order. This is guing far beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Davies: I sincerely believe that this is a valid point. It may be argued that it is hypothetical because the Bill is not yet an Act, but I believe I have a right to ask what the position cf protected persons in regard to jobs on tramp steamers will be if we enter the Common Market.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member may believe that, but in my view he is wrong.

Mr. Davies: Sir Gordon, perhaps you will be gracious enough to let the Minister answer. Perhaps the Minister will be courteous enough to let hon. Members know what the position will be, either by letter or by placing a notice with the list of Amendments outside the Chamber. The Government would show that they believed in the Commonwealth


and the spirit of unity about which they have said so much if they accepted the Amendment so that protected persons are not covered by the Bill. It is completely wrong to say that thousands of protected persons will rush to Britain for jobs, and the Government know this.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Points of such great and disturbing importance have been raised that I hope that we shall have a reply from the Colonial Office before the Government even dream of moving the Closure. The central question is whether the Government have discharged their obligation of consulting the various people with whom we are under treaty obligation regarding our obligations towards protected persons before they set about abrogating unilaterally in the Bill these treaty obligations. Other points have been made, but this is a point to which we must have an answer. I do not think that the Committee should be asked to vote before it knows whether there were proper consultations and agreements before the Government set about trying unilaterally to abrogate treaty obligations which are binding upon us all. I do not think that the Colonial Secretary should reply yet, because there are other points to be made, but I hope that he will reply before there is any thought of the Closure being moved.

The Attorney-General: I have heard it repeatedly alleged that this provision amounts to unilateral abrogation of treaty obligations. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) put a question on that point to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), but the hon. Gentleman did not give a single instance of a provision in a treaty of any territory which he could substantiate as being infringed by this subsection. In my belief, there are no such provisions. Nor do I believe that the hon. Member, who can speak after me if he wishes—he spoke for a very long time when he was asked this question but did not answer it—can give a single instance of a treaty being affected.
These treaties did not confer, in terms explicit or implied, any right in perpetuity to access to this country for individuals of those territories.

Mr. Fletcher: The Attorney-General must not misrepresent me. I said that it was either explicit or certainly implied in the treaty obligations, entered into with the Paramount Chiefs and such persons as the Queen of Tonga, that we conceded them the rights of British protected persons and entered into the obligation that their peoples had the right to come to this country, because at that time it was a recognised right available to all persons.
I argued that whereas we might, in this Parliament, be able to deal with subjects of the Colonies, we have no right to abrogate these treaty rights without their consent. We have also asked whether the Paramount Chiefs of Basutoland, Bechuanaland or Swaziland have been consulted. Has the Queen of Tonga been consulted? Have they given consent to this provision?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has repeated what he said in his speech but he has not quoted or been able to cite one single treaty in support of his argument. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will make my own speech. The hon. Gentleman has not been able to cite one single treaty in which it is explicitly declared that British protected persons should be allowed in perpetuity the right to come to this country. Nor do I believe that that is implied in any of these treaties. One has to look at the terms of a treaty to see what can be implied from it. I am not aware of any case where it can possibly be substantiated that the inclusion of British protected persons in this subsection involves a unilateral abrogation of treaty obligations.

Mr. S. Silverman: In this explanation which the Attorney-General is giving—for which, I am sure, everybody is most grateful—he has said he knows of no treaty in which these rights were given in perpetuity. Does he thereby mean to imply that the rights were given for a period? If so, what sort of period?

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I should have put it a little more lengthily: I mean, in perpetuity or at all. I will certainly add that phrase if the hon. Gentleman does not see what I was getting at. I say specifically that I am not aware of, and I do not think there is, a single case where the right


to come to this country has been conferred on any inhabitant of a protected territory, or where it could be properly implied from the terms of any treaty.

Mr. S. Silverman: In that case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in direct conflict with his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who was quite explicit in reply to an intervention at the beginning of this debate—if so one-sided a thing can be called a debate. The Minister of State said that I was right in correcting him when he said that we should not be given rights. I said that that was perhaps inaccurate and that it was a question of taking away established rights. The Minister of State agreed with that. If the Attorney-General is saying that in no treaty were British protected persons given a right in perpetuity or at all, he is implying that they have at this moment, no such rights, and that is the exact opposite of what the Minister of State said.

The Attorney-General: I am dealing with the question of rights arising under a treaty, and I will deal with any other rights if any basis for them is put forward. I do not accede to the view that a British protected person has any legal right of entry into this country. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) alleged, no doubt sincerely, that there was a difference of view between my hon. and learned Friend and myself. I have the great misfortune of not hearing the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, but I have engaged in the most thorough consultation with him and the result of that consultation has satisfied me that although we did not speak with the same voice, we spoke to the same effect.

Mr. Fletcher: If it is suggested that they have no rights, why is it necessary to take them away by the Bill?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that that is not a proper way to put the question. The question which arises on the Amendment is simply whether British protected persons, who have never been British subjects, should be in a preferential position over citizens of the Commonwealth who are British subjects. When the hon. Member speaks of taking away rights, he should put the question the

other way. What the Bill is seeking to do is to give general powers over the whole field of the control of immigration into this country, and that includes and should include British protected persons who are not and never have been British subjects and who come from territories which do not form part of the Commonwealth, because if they were part of the Commonwealth, these people would not be British protected persons. I invite the Committee to say that it would make a major alteration for the worse if the application of subsection (4) to British protected persons were excised.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Government know the rate of immigration of British protected persons into Britain in the last few years?

The Attorney-General: I am informed that it is very small. I shall not give precise figures. The point I desire to make is that it is not a question of how many British protected persons came in last year or the year before, but whether, when we are taking general powers, we should leave British protected persons outside the scope of the Bill or include them. The answer is obviously that they should be included.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that in his view there is no treaty which confers rights which we think may have been conferred on these people. Has he himself examined any of these treaties and satisfied himself about that? After all, he is the legal adviser of the House of Commons as well as of the Government. If he has not, will he do so and let us know the results?
Secondly, would he answer the clear and simple question—were any of the Paramount Chiefs consulted?

Hon. Members: Answer.

12 m.

The Attorney-General: I saw at least three other hon. Members on their feet after the right hon. Gentleman had put his question to me, and I was waiting to hear what they had to say. I have had to consider several of these treaties in the course of time. The hon. Member has not been able to quote one—and


he has been asked to do so. He made the point to substantiate his argument. I certainly do not claim to have examined them all, but the hon. Member has sought to base his argument on this proposition and, as a lawyer, one would have thought that if there was anything in his argument he would have armed himself with the terms of a treaty on which he could base his argument. Instead of that he has put forward a hypothetical argument, unsubstantiated on any ground at all.
As for consultations, I have said that proper consultation has been carried on with the Governors of all the Protected Territories.

Mr. Fletcher: Has there ever been consultation with the Queen of Tonga?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): All the Governments have been informed of our intentions, and all have been consulted on ways to make the Bill effective. That consultation is a continuous process which is going on even at this moment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am lost in amazement at the light-mindedness with which the Government are treating an argument which was put forward with skill and completeness by my hon. Friend, who set out a serious argument, supported by considerable detail.
I am not saying that I can cite any treaty in support of my hon. Friend's submission that there is a unilateral breach of a treaty in this part of the Bill. I suspect that he must be right from the nature of the case, but I grant at once that I cannot cite any instance.
But what does it matter? The right hon. and learned Friend has talked as though, if a British protected person is not a British subject, it weakens his claim to protection. I should have thought that it strengthens it. Such a person is a British protected person for that reason. We have assumed special obligations to him, just because he has no legal rights on which he can stand either in this or in any other country, and we have said to him, and to all the other inhabitants of the Protectorate or the Protected Territory, as the case may be, "Give the United Kingdom certain rights to direct your affairs and, in

return, we will treat your inhabitants as British protected persons."
I do not know whether this has ever been set out in a treaty—perhaps it has and perhaps it has not—but it surely is the basic foundation of the whole arrangement whereby we have exercised virtually sovereign authority in these lands where the protected persons originate. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that this is a conception well known in other branches of the law. If I may use the analogy, a British protected person is a man who is not sui juris. He does not stand on his own feet in protecting his own rights. He is not a full, legal person, as children are not, as insane persons are not, and as persons under any other kind of disability are not—and the disability from which a British protected person suffers is just that he has not the legal rights which British citizenship would give him.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes this a reproach to him. So far from being a reproach to him, it is just this which entitles him to special treatment at our hands. That is why we might be entitled to say that in the Bill, even if we point to some other exceptions which might have been made but were not, he might be entitled to protection and exemption in a sense that no one else would be.
The Minister of State said how illogical it would be to give a British protected person a special status which we are denying to Australians, Canadians and all the others he cited, but he must be oblivious of the history of Clause 1 in Committee. It is no fault of this Committee that the Australians, the Canadians and all the others were not exempted from the Bill. There were Amendments on the Notice Paper to exempt them all one by one.

The Chairman: Order. We cannot debate that now.

Mr. Silverman: I am not doing so, Sir Gordon. I am only pointing out that it is a little hard for the Minister of State to reproach the Committee with an apparent illogicality for which the Committee is not responsible and about which the Committee had no opportunity of doing anything else. I am not saying that by way of criticism of anyone, but,


if the Committee had decided, on a Division, in the case of Australia or any of the other countries, the Minister might have made that point. As we had no such opportunity it is not the way in which to approach this matter.
What I am saying to him and to the Attorney-General and to the Committee is that we have a special duty, a special obligation to British protected persons, which people who have their own rights in their own countries as British citizens cannot claim. It is said that they have been consulted and informed, but how? Through what machinery? Who has been informed? Who could speak for them? If they have been consulted, who has made this exceptional privilege in their favour? If the Protectorates and the Protected Territories and whoever is in authority in them were consulted, they were the only part of this great Commonwealth who ever were consulted.
It is clear that if anyone is to be reproached with making exceptions that is where the exception was made, but I do not believe that any exception was made. I do not believe that anyone was consulted at any time. Nor, if I am right in what I am saying about the status of British protected persons, is there anyone who could have been consulted. If that is the right way to look at the matter, is there any difficulty when we look at the practical side of it? It might well be said, "This is all very well as a matter of law, a matter of logic and a matter of reason, but we cannot afford to do it, because there are 14 million of them".
The Minister of State came very near to saying that in his original speech. He thought it was a very good and relevant point to say that we would be opening the doors wide to 14 million people, but, when we asked how many of the 14 million would be likely to come and how many have, in fact, come in recent years, he thought that that was irrelevant. He would not answer. He has got the figures with him and will not tell us. We are justified in drawing the inference that the figures are so small as to make of his argument a mockery so far as it rested on the "large numbers" of people who might come in.

Mr. Diamond: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but you will recollect that this Amendment has been on the Notice Paper for a considerable period. You will recollect, further, that you were good enough to help the Committee by including it in a provisional selection about a fortnight ago. It has, therefore, been known to the Government for at least a fortnight that this Amendment was likely to be selected.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Diamond: With great deference, Sir Gordon, may I proceed from the introductory remarks which I was making to the point of order which I was about to raise? It was well known to the Government that the Amendment would be selected. Inasmuch as the Chair has ruled very recently that it is impossible for the Committee to consider legislation without the relevant documents, would you give us your ruling on the lack of figures, which are most relevant to the Amendment, of which very full notice has been given? The figures are available and the Minister has said that he could give them when the debate has concluded.

The Chairman: That may be an argument, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Silverman: Whether it is a point of order which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) is entitled to raise is for you to rule, and we can only accept your Ruling, Sir Gordon; but it is certainly a relevant argument for me to make in my speech. and I am making it.
I am entitled to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two questions: first, has he the figures? I am ready to give way to him if he will be good enough to answer the question. Whether he provides the figures will be for later consideration, and no doubt we shall come to that, but is there any reason why he should not tell us whether the figures are available? Whether he gives them or not, has he got them?

Mr. A. Lewis: My hon. Friend was outside the Committee for a few moments and in that time the Minister said that he had the figures, but that


he could not go through the papers and total them. He said that he would give them later. I and other hon. Members can verify that he said that he had them available

Mr. Silverman: I did not hear that said.

Mr. A. Lewis: He has not denied it.

Mr. Silverman: Is there any reason why the Minister of State should be so discourteous as not to tell us whether he has the figures? Is there a reason for withholding from the Committee not necessarily what the figures are, but even the bare point whether he knows them? Is there any reason why he should not tell us?

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Attorney-General: I wish that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had listened to what I said. I told him that we could not give the particular numbers who come here, but that we accepted that they were very small.

Mr. Denis Howell: What are the figures?

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Member interrupts me I will sit down again and not answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is good parliamentary procedure. If the hon. Member wanted to interrupt me, I would sit down.
I am dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I have said before, and I repeat in his hearing, that the point here is whether we include or exclude the category of British protected persons, and the argument for their inclusion does not depend on the numbers who entered this country last year or the year before that.

Mr. Silverman: I assure the Attorney-General that I heard him say that the first time. It may be his view that these figures are not relevant to the argument. He is entitled to that view. He has expressed it three times. But it is not everybody's view. To some of us the figures are very relevant. I ask again, whether he thinks them relevant or not, and whether he thinks them conclusive or inconclusive, does he know what they are?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Fletcher: In the absence of any reply from the Treasury Bench to my hon. Friend, may I say that, as far as I can understand from the Annual Abstract of Statistics, the number of British protected persons who have come here in the last four years is under 300 each year?

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Silverman: Now that my hon. Friend has provided an authority or a source from which the Minister of State or the Attorney-General—provided that they can still read—are able to derive the information that we would like, can either of them say whether those figures are correct? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] This, for these two Ministers, is a most unusual example of gross discourtesy and gross abuse of the procedure of the Committee.
We are dealing with the question of whether British protected persons who now enjoy certain rights should have those rights taken away from them by this Bill. How can it be irrelevant to that issue to ask who these persons are; how many there are; and how big a problem it is in practice? If the Government do not know, they have been grossly negligent in dealing with an important constitutional question.
If the Government do know, then they are quite deliberately deceiving the Committee, because, knowing the figures, there can be only one reason for withholding them, and that is because they know that if the figures were communicated to the Committee they would assist the Committee in rejecting all the arguments which the Government have advanced on this point.
Both Ministers still sit in silence. Mute of malice, not mute by the visitation of God. I would hesitate to remove responsibility from the shoulders of the Ministers to any other quarter. am sure that they are mute of malice; mute of the evil intention of withholding from the Committee the facts and information which the Committee ought to have to reach the right conclusion.
There can be no reason, except an intention to flout the rights of the Committee, to withhold the information


which we ought to have because they know that their attitude on this Amendment cannot be supported; that there are no facts and no figures and no argument to assist them in rejecting the Amendment, and the whole thing is almost more contemptible, if that were possible, than the Bill itself.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 179, Noes 98.

Division No. 32.]
AYES
[12.19 a.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, Alan
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Grimston, Sir Robert
Pitman, Sir James


Atkins, Humphrey
Gurden, Harold
Pitt, Miss Edith


Barber, Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Port, Percivall


Barter, John
Hamilton, Michael (wellingborough)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Batsford, Brian
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Berkeley, Humphry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Prior, J. M. L.


Biffen, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Francis


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Ramsden, James


Bossom, Clive
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Peter


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hobson, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Box, Donald
Hocking, Philip N.
Rees, Hugh


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Holland, Philip
Renton, David


Braine, Bernard
Hollingworth, John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Ridsdale, Julian


Brooman-White, R.
Hornby, R. P.
Rippon, Geoffrey


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bryan, Paul
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Buck, Antony
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bullard, Denys
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Ronald


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Iremonger, T. L.
St. Clair, M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carr, Common (Barons Court)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shaw, M.


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Shepherd, William


Chataway, Christopher
Joseph, Sir Keith
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Chichester-clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cleaver, Leonard
Kimball, Marcus
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Cooper, A. E.
Kitson, Timothy
Talbot, John E.


Cordeaux. Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tapsell, Peer


Corfield, F. V.
Leburn, Glimour
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Curran, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Loveys, Walter H.
Temple, John M.


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


de Ferranti, Basil
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


du Cann, Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Duncan, Sir James
McMaster, Stanley R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
van straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Maginnis, John E.
Wakefieid, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Farr, John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Walder, David


Fell, Anthony
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernett
Walker, Peter


Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Webster, David


Fisher, Nigal
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, William


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S- L. C.
Wise, A. R.


Freeth, Denzil
Nabarro, Gerald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Noble, Michael
Woodhouse, C. M.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Sir John
Paga, Graham (Crosby)
Woollam, John


Glover, Sir Douglas
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhart, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)



Goodhew, Victor
Peirson, Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Percival, Ian
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. McLaren.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth





NOES


Ainsley, William
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Cliffe, Michael


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Crosland, Anthony


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Harold (Leek)




Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Delargy, Hugh
Hoy, James H.
Popplewell, Ernest


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Diamond, John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Short, Edward


Evans, Albert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fitch, Alan
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Eric
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Logan, David
Stonehouse, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Symonds, J. B.


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Gordon walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wade, Donald


Greenwood, Anthony
Manuel, A. C.
Wainwright, Edwin


Grimond, J.
Mellish, R J.
Warbey, William


Gunter, Ray
Mendelson, J. J.
Weitzman, David


Hamilton, William (west Fife)
Milne, Edward J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hannan, William
Mitchison, G. R.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, John
Woof, Robert


Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oram, A. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hilton, A. V.
Oswald, Thomas



Holt, Arthur
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Houghton, Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Lawsoo and Mr. Redhead.


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pean, Frederick

Question put accordingly, That "British protected persons and" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 180, Noes 98.

Division No. 33.]
AYES
[2.28 a.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fell, Anthony
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Finlay, Graeme
Leburn, Gilmour


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Fisher, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Gilbert


Barber, Anthony
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Loveys, Walter H.


Barter, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Balsford, Brian
Freeth, Denzil
MacArthur, Ian


Berkeley, Humphry
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McLaren, Martin


Bitten, John
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)


Bishop, F. P.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bossom, Cive
Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Goodhew, Victor
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Box, Donald
Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maginnis, John E.


Braine, Bernard
Green, Alan
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gresham Cooke, R.
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Brooman-White, R.
Grimston, Sir Robert
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Bryan, Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Buck, Antony
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bullard, Denys
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nabarro, Gerald


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfok)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chataway, Christopher
Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hobson, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hocking, Philip N.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Cleaver, Leonard
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Cooper, A. E.
Hollingworth, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Corfield, F. V.
Hornby, R. P.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pitman, Sir James


Curran, Charles
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitt, Miss Edith


Currle, G. B. H.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pott, Percivall


Deedes, W. F.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


de Ferranti, Basil
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
James, David
Prior, J. M. L.


Doughty, Charles
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


du Cann, Edward
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Duncan, Sir James
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ramsden, James


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Peter


Emery, Peter
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Hugh


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Renton, David




Ridley, John Nicholas
Talbot, John E.
Walder, David


Ridsdale, Julian
Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Peter


Rippon, Geoffrey
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Webster, David


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Taylor, F. H. (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roots, William
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Whitelaw, William


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Temple, John M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Russell, Ronald
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Wise, A. R.


St. Clair, M.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Parick


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Woodhouse, C. M.


Shaw, M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Woodnutt, Mark


Shepherd, William
They, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Woollam, John


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Skeet, T. H.H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Smith, Dudey (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mr. Noble and




Mr. Michael Hamilton.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Gunter, Ray
Oram, A. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oswald, Thomas


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, William
Pargiter, G. A.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pavitt, Laurence


Bennettt, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hilton, A. V.
Popplewell, Ernest


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Holt, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Houghton, Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ross, William


Cliffe, Michael
Hoy, James H.
Short, Edward


Crosland, Anthony
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Stonehouse, John


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Swingler, Stephen


Diamond, John
Lee, Miss Jennies (Cannock)
Symonds, J. B.


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Lipton, Marcus
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Logan, David
Wade, Donald


Evans, Albert
Loughlin, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Warbey, William


Fitch, Alan
MacColl, James
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Malialieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, A. C.
Woof, Robert


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mellish, R. J.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, J. J.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Milne, Edward J.



Gordon walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Greenwood, Anthony
Morris, John
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Redhead.


Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Mr. R. A. Butler: rose—

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I wish to raise with you a point of order relating to the future proceedings on the Bill. You will recollect that when the extension of the B.B.C. Licence came before us I raised with you the question whether certain papers and documents should be readily available to hon. Members to enable them to take part in debate. Mr. Speaker made a statement today to the effect that where certain papers and documents were necessary for orderly debate, he would make them available.
During this debate we have been very interested in the Protected Territories and the treaties with them. The Attorney-General said that the treaties did not contain matters to which my hon. Friends wanted to refer. But are

we not entitled to have available in the Vote Office, when we debate the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", first, the treaties which it is necessary for us to have in order to take part in the debate, and, secondly, the figures which the Minister has available but has refused to give us? Mr. Speaker has ruled that if it is necessary for orderly debate that papers, documents, figures, and so on, should be available, they should be available in the Vote Office.
Will you, Sir Gordon, make the various documents available at least in time for the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" so that one of my hon. Friends does not have the difficulty he had this evening, when he was unable to quote from the treaties? I am convinced that if my hon. Friend had had them the debate


with the Attorney-General would have been much more orderly.

The Chairman: It is far too late now to raise a point on the documents in connection with the Amendment, and Mr. Speaker pointed out that one should, if possible, try to use the considerable resources of the Library.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do not think that—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. A. Lewis: Further to my point of order, Sir Gordon. I did not for a moment suggest that the treaties, papers and documents could be available for matters which we have already discussed. I pointed out that eventually we should be coming to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". When we debate that Question many of my hon. Friends will want this information. Mr. Speaker said that documents of this kind should be available in the Vote Office, not the Library. I suggest that we should ask the Leader of the House, or those others who are concerned, to see that they are available when we come to that debate, otherwise we shall have difficulties similar to those which we have already experienced.

The Chairman: I am sure that Mr. Speaker's instructions will be carried out by the Vote Office when we come to that part of the debate.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not think that it is right to debate the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" at this time of night. It would be wiser, I think, to report Progress. We cannot say that we are satisfied with the progress made, but we think that it is as much as we shall make tonight.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We welcome and support the Motion. It is desirable that the Government and the Committee should take time to consider the progress we have made today before we come to debate the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
Many things have happened today. There was a major slump in the Govern

ment's majority at one point and there have been criticisms from both sides of the Committee. It is important that the Government should consider these and that we should consider Government statements.
The right hon. Gentleman is right. We should study HANSARD carefully before we reach the debate on the Clause. There have been ambiguities and doubts in many Ministerial speeches. I hope that the Home Secretary will give careful thought to the question of providing adequate documents and figures to enable the Committee to proceed further with the Bill. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will accept the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress: to sit again this day.

HOUSING, GLASGOW

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]

12.46 a.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I want to discuss tonight the persistent and pernicious problem of Glasgow's housing conditions.
I want to urge, first, the immediate need for Government action to facilitate and expedite existing arrangements and agreements with other local authorities which have agreed to take some of Glasgow's overspill. Secondly, I urge that where the Glasgow local authority asks for changes of the zoning within the city for rehousing the Minister should give urgent consideration to this matter. Thirdly, but most important, I urge the great need for a review of the present slow progress of house building within the new towns, which seem to hold out the best prospect of making the greatest contribution to the solution of Glasgow's problem.
Only on Saturday last delegates of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and of the Labour Party met and passed a resolution in which they condemned as pathetically inadequate and deliberately deceitful the Government's latest proposals to meet the housing needs of Glasgow. All of us have a sense of


shame that thousands of our fellow citizens are condemned to live in appalling slum conditions, which, in turn, breed apathy and social irresponsibility. The Government have not shown the vision and readiness to act on a scale large enough to meet the social challenge of Glasgow's housing. I refuse to believe that in a world teeming with the marvels of science and the skills of our people we cannot end these living conditions much earlier than at the moment seems to be projected.
Glasgow's basic problem today is the lack of sites within the city on which to build houses. This problem has been known for ten years and more. Despite Glasgow's admirable record of having built 117,000 houses since 1920, her waiting list today is about 115,000. The greatest need for years to come will be more council houses for renting. One hundred thousand of Glasgow's total of 328,000 houses are estimated to be unfit and not capable of improvement, according to the Medical Officer of Health.
Another problem is that each year that passes 23,000 of the total number of houses become obsolescent. Since Glasgow is building about 3,300 houses per year, the new houses are doing no more than replacing those which becomne obsolescent. Consequently, the hard core of 100,000 remains.
I shall not go over all the details which have been so often recited in the House. I merely remind the Minister, once again, that in the second half of the twentieth century half the families in Glasgow have no bath in their homes and that one-third of the families have to share outside water closets. Even the minimum of civilised living conditions are not provided.
The plain fact is that unless sites are provided in the near future house building in Glasgow will grind to a halt. The Secretary of State can help in three ways. He has before him now the proposals contained in Glasgow's quinquennial review. There is one proposal, in particular, which I urge him to look at. It concerns the area of Summerston, in my constituency.
I know the difficulties. The Secretary of State has to decide between housing, coal and agriculture. Several objections have been lodged. I am under no delu

sion about the difficulties. In the deliberations which have gone on for five years the Corporation has suggested that, since its proposals about Summerston are only part of major considerations in its review of the city redevelopment plan, it would be unfortunate and frustrating if the many other proposals which are not objected to were delayed because of lengthy technical disagreement. But that is exactly what happened.
A Secretary of State who has a proposal before him for five years, and knows Glasgow's situation, is not seized of the urgency of the problem. My plea is that he should expedite the less controversial decisions. Is it not possible to introduce some elasticity into a position which urgently merits attention? Is it not possible to make known now interim decisions on various sites where no objections are taken, so that the local authority can proceed to put building in hand at once?
The second way in which the Secretary of State could help is in respect of requests by the local authority for the changing of zoning in the city. Involved are 46 sites covering 630 acres, all of which are outwith the intended 29 redevelopment areas. All these 46 sites have not been submitted to the Secretary of State for decision—I admit that. I understand that five of them are included in the quinquennial review. Where there are no objections, however, against any of these proposals, could not the Secretary of State let the local authority know, so that it can get on with the job?
I can understand the questions and decisions confronting the Secretary of State about open spaces in an already overcrowded city. The argument is that open spaces in a few places are too large, whereas the alternative would be to have smaller open spaces in more places. Why cannot he give consent where there is no objection? Could not flexibility be introduced without his waiting for the whole plan?
I want to quote a letter which sets out the problem clearly. Again, it concerns an area in my constituency. It is in the Milton area. Apparently, the Department of Health has been in correspondence with the Corporation at least since last October. There are 20 acres


of concrete here being transferred from the Parks Department of Glasgow to the Housing Department. I understand that this has been agreed between the two departments, but the letter makes this case:
The sub-committee agreed that representations should be made to the Department stressing the urgency of the situation and asking if, in the special circumstances, the Secretary of State might be prepared to agree to development proceeding before that date. It is hoped that some machinery can be found whereby, in cases of urgency, the Secretary of State still approves changes in zoning in advance of general decisions on zoning in the quinquennial review.
I do not need to elaborate the point. It is admirably set out in that letter.
My third point is that these suggestions—important as they are and involving 20,000 to 30,000 houses—are quite inadequate to meet the gigantic operation necessary to satisfy Glasgow's needs and for replacing wasting houses. The Secretary of State should have a look at Glasgow's overspill arrangements, not only with other towns but with new towns. Is the Under-Secretary of State satisfied with the speed of building in the new towns? The figure of production of houses is fantastic.
This is not criticism of the good people on the new town corporations. I believe that they are suffering, as are representatives of local authorities, from Government restraint and inhibitions. But to tackle the problem of building in the new towns would be getting to grips with the matter. The provision and building up of the new towns is the real answer, but it needs greater energy, imagination and drive than have so far been displayed by the Government.
My researches seem to show that in this, as in other things, there is a great gulf between the Government's promises and their accomplishments. This situation was known to the Government ten years ago. It was known that sites within Glasgow's central area would be used up. The question of a new town for overspill was referred by the Secretary of State to the Clyde Valley Regional Planning Committee. That Committee reported in December, 1953, and recommended as a matter of urgency that the new town of Cumbernauld should be built. Obeying that injunction to urgency, with his usual

great alacrity, the Secretary of State considered the matter. Three years afterward, with a great beating of drums and breasts and sounding of tocsins, the Secretary of State announced that Cumbernauld was designated. The next move was to introduce the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act in May, 1957.
I will not go into details, but the Government extolled the virtues of that Act and said that it would make a magnificent contribution to rehousing Glasgow's long-suffering people. In an unguarded moment of folly or excess of enthusiasm, Lord Craigton, who was then the Joint Under-Secretary of State, said during the Committee stage of the Bill:
…we look on this operation
that is, overspill—
as a sort of"—
his words—
first ten-year plan.
Let hon. Members note these words:
Within that period the target is to provide 15,000 houses with Glasgow's boundaries, either on new sites or in central redevelopment; another 15,000 in overspill areas of other local authorities; and another 20,000 in the two new towns."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 7th May. 1957; c. 811.]
The overspill areas and the new towns together in the ten years from 1957 were to provide 35,000 houses. To put it another way, that was 3,500 houses annually for ten years. Now, four years later, when we should have 14,000 houses if the plan had worked—and it did not—we have only 2,900, according to the returns of the Glasgow local authority for 1st September, 1961. There can be few of the many disastrous operations undertaken by the Government whose gravity has exceeded that of this problem of Glasgow's overspill, and I would like to hear the hon. Gentleman's defence and explanation of the figures which I have quoted.
Does the blame lie with the local authorities? If it does, what has he done about it? Does the blame lie in the terms of the Act? If so, what has he done about amending it? Does the hon. Gentleman know that only 37 out of the 226 local authorities had overspill agreements as at 1st December, and that after four years? Of that 37, nine had


no houses under construction a year ago. If the hon. Gentleman can say that some houses are now under construction, so much the better, but what does he have to say about Kirkintilloch, which was one of the most enthusiastic local authorities at the beginning and which does not now want to proceed? The town of Johnstone has said the same thing.
Does the hon. Gentleman still think that 35,000 houses will be provided in the ten years? If he does, I refer him to what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says in the recent White Paper about reaching targets. It is always targets, targets, targets, with populations being built up from 50,000 to 70,000 in these new towns. The Ministers who make these declarations go home glowing with virtue, because, in their own minds, they have built another 20,000 houses. This is an astounding situation. The Minister goes on to say:
It is intended that building for overspill, now running at nearly 2,000 houses a year, should rise steadily and that altogether 60,000 overspill houses should be provided within twenty years.
Some people will have to wait for twenty years.
I want to ask the Minister about the new towns. What is happening in Glenrothes, for example? Last year, 372 houses were built. This year, only 260 have been built. Lord Craigton paid a visit to East Kilbride and said that the population target was now 70,000 instead of 55,000. He asked the Corporation to maintain a rate of 1,000 houses per year. Yet fewer houses have been built this year than last year—919 as against 1,000.
How will Glasgow's problem be solved by means of the two new towns projected by the Government for the primary purpose of assisting in the rehousing of Glasgow's population? I hope that the Under-Secretary has some good answers. Does not he thinks—as a Member for a Glasgow constituency; my next-door neighbour, in fact—that it is high time that he or the Secretary of State, together with two or three other Glasgow Members, asked the local authority what its problems were, and tried to meet them? Cannot he give us an assurance that the frightful plight of many people in Glasgow will be met sooner than is projected in the declarations we have had in the past?

1.2 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The principal reason which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has in raising the subject of the new towns and Glasgow's overspill is, I am sure, his desire to see the people of Glasgow better housed. I go all the way with him in wanting to get this done as quickly as possible.
Before dealing with the points which the hon. Member raised, I must point out, in fairness to Glasgow, that since the war over 64,000 new houses have been completed within the city. It is a very substantial achievement, to which it is right to pay tribute. As a result of all this building the position has been reached—as the hon. Member recognises—where there is now very little housing land in Glasgow. It is estimated that approximately 200,000 people will have to be found houses outside the city boundaries, which will involve the building of approximately 60,000 houses.
As a preliminary to the hon. Member's review of the progress that is being made with overspill in an attempt to satisfy this need, he asked me several questions about possible means whereby more houses could be built in Glasgow.
First, he suggested that some of the parks and open spaces might be used for house building. As I am sure he is aware, any proposal to build on areas zoned as open space in the Glasgow Development Plan must come from the Corporation itself. So far, no proposals along these lines have been received by my right hon. Friend. If any such proposals were received, he would be able to consider them—and this is the difficulty—only after they had been open to objection and after a public inquiry had been held. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the allocation of land for housing, for open spaces and for all other purposes was very carefully considered by the Corporation at the quinquennial review of the Development Plan. The Corporation decided against any encroachment on the parks and there, for the time being, the matter rests.
I should also direct the hon. Member's attention to Chapter 8 of the Corporation's Survey Report, which shows a


considerable deficiency, even at present, in the amount of open space available in Glasgow.
The second point made by the hon. Member concerned certain areas at Summerston to the north, and at Darnley, to the south of Glasgow. In the quinquennial review the Corporation suggested that those areas should be rezoned for housing. The hon. Member tonight has been pressing me to ask my right hon. Friend to give an early decision on this proposal. My right hon. Friend is, of course, aware of the urgency of the problem; but I must point out that owing to the great complexity of the issues involved the Reporter who conducted the inquiry was not able to circulate the factual part of his report until October. Until the whole report has been received—and it has not yet been received—my right hon. Friend can make no comment.
The hon. Member indicated that he knew what a complicated matter this was, involving not only Glasgow's need for land for building, but also the needs of the National Coal Board and the claims of the green belt. I am sure that he will realise, therefore, that with the best will in the world it will be some little time before my right hon. Friend can come to a decision. Certainly, in coming to a decision, he will have in mind the points made by the hon. Member.
I turn to the main part of the hon. Member's speech in which he was rightly concerned with the progress of overspill. I say "rightly', because it is in overspill that the solution to Glasgow's housing problem will argely—but not, as I hope to be able to show, entirely—be found. There are two kinds of overspill: first, in the new towns, and, secondly, in the form of expansion of existing towns. Expansion agreements have been made with various towns throughout Scotland for the building of 15,000 houses for Glasgow overspill. Admittedly, the bulk of this programme is still on paper, but the fact that it even exists on paper shows a welcome willingness on the part of towns far afield to consider helping Glasgow. It is a form of long-term planning which, I should imagine, would appeal to the hon. Member.

Sir Myer Galpern: New industries should be brought to the area.

Mr. Galbraith: That point is, naturally, very important. If the hon. Member for Shettlestone (Sir M. Galpern) had attended the Adjournment debate last week he would have heard my remarks on that subject. So far, I have been talking about work on paper.
As for actual achievements, I should point out that the number of houses provided and in course of construction outside the new towns in overspill agreements of the second sort I mentioned amount to 2,697—which represents about 10,000 people. The hon. Member suggested that there was a falling off in enthusiasm, but that is not my information. He referred, in particular, to Kirkintilloch; but that town has completed its overspill agreement and is now considering another. I cannot think where he got his information about Johnstone; my information is that right across Scotland, from Johnstone in the west to Arbroath in the east, all the local authorities concerned are pushing ahead with substantial programmes of building.
I think that the hon. Member was being unduly despondent as to the new towns themselves. In East Kilbride, for the last three years, from 1958 to 1960, about 1,000 houses per year have been built. I admit that this year there was a serious drop; but this was not due to any lack of drive or determination, but simply to difficult soil conditions. I am very glad to say that those difficulties have now been overcome and that over 1,000 houses are under construction in East Kilbride and that the Corporation hopes to be back to its average output soon. Neither my right hon. Friend nor the Corporation will be satisfied with an output of fewer than 1,200 houses per annum, and there is good hope of getting that annual output by the end of next year.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State did last year the very thing which the hon. Member has invited me and my right hon. Friend to do in this connection. He had a meeting with Glasgow Corporation, followed by meetings in the new towns which are already bearing


fruit in increased output. To that extent we have, perhaps, forestalled the hon. Member.
I explained in an Adjournment debate last week, what the position is in Glenrothes, and in view of the time I will not repeat the argument. At Cumbernauld, the third of the new towns, the build-up in the number of houses being completed is going ahead satisfactorily. In 1958, it was 121; in 1959, it was 200; and, in 1960, it was 251; and in the first nine months of this year it was 447—which is an annual rate of output of nearly 600. In the five years it has been in existence it has completed 1,000 houses. That rate of progress has been bettered in only one other new town—and I refer not only to Scotland, but to the whole of the United Kingdom.
As a result of this expansion, coupled with the recovery of East Kilbride, we expect that the three new towns will complete 2,000 houses next year against 1,500 this year. In addition, the fourth new town at Livingston is likely to be producing houses in 1963, and by 1965, when its output will be going up steadily, we can reasonably expect that the output from the new towns and from expansion of existing towns will be about 4,000 houses per annum.
Incidentally, this rate of building is, on the face of things, higher than the rate Glasgow would need to have over twenty years to meet their estimated total requirement of 60,000 houses outside the city. I agree, however, that even more houses are needed.
The hon. Member asked for my help and I hope that I have shown him that the picture is not as black as he had supposed. I assure him that the Government are anxious to encourage the various authorities to press ahead as fast as possible. The hon. Member asked for my help, and I ask for his. In addition to the public supply of houses, there is still great scope in Scot

land for the building of more private houses both for owner-occupation and for letting. What is holding up this development which would help so much to solve the Glasgow problem is the unreasonably low rents which are being charged.

Sir M. Galpern: Rubbish.

Mr. Galbraith: The financial advantages of highly subsidised—

Mr. Hannan: rose—

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member must accept what I am saying. He had his speech of 13 or 14 minutes.
The financial advantages of a highly subsidised and low-rented house are such that those who might otherwise consider providing themselves with a house, either as owner-occupiers or as tenants, and are able to afford it, are being deterred from doing so just because of the good bargain which they are fortuitously enjoying. I therefore hope that, if the hon. Gentleman is anxious to solve the Glasgow housing problem, as he appears to be, and if he is concerned about it in the way in which I am concerned about it, he will support my right hon. Friend in endeavouring to get local authorities to charge more reasonable rents.

Mr. Hannan: rose—

Mr. Galbraith: I will not give way.
It is clear that the hon. Member did not expect me to end this Adjournment debate on this note. But it is only the combined effort of both public and private resources alike—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past One o'clock.